The Death of the United States of America

[Jim1cor13]

What I'm saying LGD is you do not need to be Christian to be patriotic.

 

- George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia (1789)

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.”

- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1771)

- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.”

“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.”

- Roger Sherman, Congress (1789)

- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack (1758)"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people build a wall of separation between Church & State."

- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis No. V (1776)

"To argue with a man who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

“

Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.

”

- Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779)

- James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr. (1774)"Christian establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."

- George Washington, address to Congress (1790)"There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

 "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

 

 

Appreciate the truth Socal. Indeed most still insist the opposite of what these statements

say clearly. We were often told as kids the exact opposite of these statements. When I

found out the truth about our founding, and shared that with a few, it often caused anger

which was strange to me. The founders understood the dangers of established religion,

no matter the name, and resisted it strongly with good reason.

 

That last statement by Washington is spot on and it was this they wanted to avoid in the

building of this country. Sadly, we still see the very same superstition, bigotry and persecution

today as they understood it at the time. They also understood having a reverence for God

did not mean one had the right to become oppressive, the very thing they wanted to avoid.

 

Thanks for the post Socal, I am glad to see it did not cause a fire storm.

[Markinsa]

It is obvious that the principal alteration proposed by the first resolution is the omission of the declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification for office in the cases of the governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, and members of the legislature. I shall content myself on this occasion with stating, shortly and generally, the sentiments of the select committee, as I understand them, on the subject of this resolution.

 

Two questions naturally present themselves. In the first place, Have the people a right, if in their judgment the security of their government and its due administration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Christian religion as a qualification or condition of office? On this question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of the people. They may grant or they may withhold it at pleasure; and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms and what conditions they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man can be said to have a right to that which others may withhold from him at pleasure. 

 

There are certain rights, no doubt, which the whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, owe to each individual in return for that obedience and personal service, and those proportionate contributions to the public burdens which each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in this constitution. " Each individual in society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws." Here is no right of office enumerated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the State. All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, they have of course a right to regulate it by any rules which they may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, prescribe certain qualifications for office respecting age, property, residence, and taxation. But if office, merely as such, were a right which each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all these qualifications would be excluded. Acknowledged rights are not subject, and ought not to be subject to any such limitation. The right of being protected in life, liberty, and estate is due to all and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, or residence in the State. 

 

These qualifications, then, can only be made requisite as conditions for office on the ground that office is not what any man can demand as matter of right but rests in the confidence and good-will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it seems to me too plain to be questioned that the right of office is a matter of discretion and option, and can never be claimed by any man on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, that those who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. Between two candidates otherwise equally qualified, the people at an election may decide in favor of one because he is a Christian and against the other because he is not. They may repeat this preference at the next election on the same ground and may continue it from year to year.

 

Now, if the people may, without injustice, act upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear right to prescribe this qualification beforehand as a rule for their future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If they deem it necessary, they may so say beforehand. If the public will may require this qualification at every election as it occurs, the public will may declare itself beforehand and make such qualification a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualification has nothing to do with any man's conscience. If he dislike the condition, he may decline the office in like manner as if he dislike the salary, the rank, or any thing else which the law attaches to it. 

 

But however clear the right may be (and I can hardly suppose any gentleman will dispute it), the expediency of retaining the declaration is a more difficult question. It is said not to be necessary, because in this Commonwealth ninety-nine out of every hundred of the inhabitants profess to believe in the Christian religion. It is sufficiently certain, therefore, that persons of this description, and none others, will ordinarily be chosen to places of public trust. There is as much security, it is said, on this subject, as the necessity of the case requires. And as there is a sort of opprobrium incident to this qualification - a marking out, for observation and censorious remark, of a single individual, or a very few individuals, who may not be able to make the declaration - it is an act if not of injustice, yet of unkindness and of unnecessary rigor, to call on such individuals to make the declaration and to exclude them from office if they refuse to do so. 

 

There is also another class of objections which have been stated. It has been said that there are many very devout and serious persons, persons who esteem the Christian religion to be above all price, to whom, nevertheless, the terms of this declaration seem somewhat too strong and intense. They seem, to these persons, to require the declaration of that faith which is deemed essential to personal salvation; and therefore not at all fit to be adopted as a declaration of belief in Christianity in a more popular and general sense. It certainly appears to me that this is a mistaken interpretation of the terms; that they imply only a general assent to the truth of the Christian revelation and, at most, to the supernatural occurrences which establish its authenticity. There may, however, and there appears to be, conscience in this objection; and all conscience ought to be respected. I was not aware, before I attended the discussions in the committee, of the extent to which this objection prevailed. 

 

There is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualification is made applicable only to the executive and the members of the legislature. It would not be easy, perhaps, to say why it should not be extended to the judiciary if it were thought necessary for any office. There can be no office in which the sense of religious responsibility is more necessary than in that of a judge; especially of those judges who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty, and property of every man. There may be among legislators strong passions and bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. But legislation is in its nature general: laws usually affect the whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the whole society is alarmed and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer without sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, under accusation and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy on this side the bar of Heaven. Of all places, therefore, there is none which so imperatively demands that he who occupies it should be under the fear of God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a judge. For these reasons, perhaps, it might be thought that the constitution has not gone far enough if the provisions already in it were deemed necessary to the public security.

 

I believe I have stated the substance of the reasons which appeared to have weight with the committee. For my own part, finding this declaration in the constitution and hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been willing to retain it unless considerable objection had been expressed to it. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not consider it, however, essential to retain it as there is another part of the constitution which recognizes, in the fullest manner, the benefits which civil society derives from those Christian institutions which cherish piety, morality, and religion. I am clearly of opinion that we should not strike out of the constitution all recognition of the Christian religion. I am desirous, in so solemn a transaction as the establishment of a constitution, that we should keep in it an expression of our respect and attachment to Christianity - not, indeed, to any of its peculiar forms but to its general principles.

 

(Source: Daniel Webster, The Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster, (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1903), Vol. III, pp. 3-7.)

[SocalDinar]

And there you have it. Anything written by man is subjective.

Including the dictionary and the Bible

[MyLadiesDaddy]

And there you have it. Anything written by man is subjective.

Including the dictionary and the Bible

so are you saying that God created the heavens and the universe and the earth and everything that was created but he don't know how to write a book?

[Texstorm]

LGD that was funny ! You definitely put a smile on my face today  Thanks

[Nelg]

Good one, LGD.  But don't expect someone who does not believe in the God of the Universe to accept that premise.  There are many believers who think that the Bible is a work of man and not God. Therefore they reject His word as nothing more than an opinion on a par with other human teachers.  

Edited July 1, 2015 by Nelg

[SocalDinar]

I'm not saying there is no deity but No I surely don't think that God wrote books.

The supreme being could not find a better way to communicate than to scribble ink on paper and in a language that over 75 % of the world at the time could not understand.? And Nelg I will never follow or believe anything that promotes or uses fear to entice people to

believe in it. That is exactly the tactic that Daesh is using to spread its word and control the population.

[8th ID]

That was good LGD. Thanks..

 

There are many believers who think that the Bible is a work of man and not God. Therefore they reject His word as nothing more than an opinion on a par with other human teachers.  

 

Nelg, in my opinion, they are not believers then.

 

 

 And Nelg I will never follow or believe anything that promotes or uses fear to entice people to believe in it. That is exactly the tactic that Daesh is using to spread its word and control the population.

 

SD, first, look at the Torah. It is said that it was given to Moses by GOD, which I do believe. There is a reason that it is to be copied perfectly. Any mistake, and you start over from the beginning. Has been that way for thousands of years. Second, Daesh uses the follow us or die tactic, you have no choice. GOD and the Bible does not do that. Yes, it does give a harsh reality of what will happen if you do not accept GOD and ask for his forgiveness, but where the difference lies is that you have a choice. You have the choice to try and live your life according to his word, or you can live your life in sin. Either way, I believe we will stand before him and account for all we have done. After being judged, some will take the stairs going up, while others will take the stairs going down. Plain and simple. I hear all the time that GOD is a peaceful, all loving GOD that will not judge hard and will let things slide because he will forgive them. People that say and think this are only kidding themselves because of the ill they are doing. People seem to forget or do not want to read the last few pages or the chapters that talk about his return. When he returns, he is coming with a sword in his hand to take care of business.

[George Hayduke]

"After being judged, some will take the stairs going up, while others will take the stairs going down. Plain and simple."

 

Like a well respected Pastor once said, " This world, for the non-believer, is the closest they will get to heaven and for the believer, it is the closest they will get to hell."

[SocalDinar]

Some profanity so please do not watch if this offends you. 

 

 

[Jim1cor13]

SD, first, look at the Torah. It is said that it was given to Moses by GOD, which I do believe. There is a reason that it is to be copied perfectly. Any mistake, and you start over from the beginning. Has been that way for thousands of years. Second, Daesh uses the follow us or die tactic, you have no choice. GOD and the Bible does not do that. Yes, it does give a harsh reality of what will happen if you do not accept GOD and ask for his forgiveness, but where the difference lies is that you have a choice. You have the choice to try and live your life according to his word, or you can live your life in sin. Either way, I believe we will stand before him and account for all we have done. After being judged, some will take the stairs going up, while others will take the stairs going down. Plain and simple. I hear all the time that GOD is a peaceful, all loving GOD that will not judge hard and will let things slide because he will forgive them. People that say and think this are only kidding themselves because of the ill they are doing. People seem to forget or do not want to read the last few pages or the chapters that talk about his return. When he returns, he is coming with a sword in his hand to take care of business.

 

First, there is NO disrespect intended from any of my comments...only serious questions of your theology:

 

Quote: "Second, Daesh uses the follow us or die tactic, you have no choice. GOD and the Bible does not do that. Yes, it does give a harsh reality of what will happen if you do not accept GOD and ask for his forgiveness, but where the difference lies is that you have a choice."

 

Where is the choice? How is this different than Daash,Daesh? They say "follow or die", YOU say God gives a choice...follow his word OR be tormented forever, unending, never forgiveness...how is THIS different? It is the same tactic, only delayed according to your interpretation right? So God tells us to Love your enemies, do good to them, yet He is going to do the exact opposite to anyone who will not submit? Is not that being a hipocrite? Does that not make the "love" of God a travesty within your own definition? Does God truly need to threaten his creation in order for them to understand him and love him? Really?

 

"When he returns, he is coming with a sword in his hand to take care of business."

 

So according to your interpretation, your god is no different than what we see in this world today? Ultimately, slaughter is his game for those who never heard of him, those who would not submit to THIS god? Your god needs to use a physical sword to 'take care of business' AND make a point? What IS his sword? Is it his word, Logos or is it a physical sword of slaughter? So how is your god different than other divine tyrants throughout the millenia? So in reality, there is NO difference according to you, when you compare to Daash,Daesh, it is only just a matter of time, same result for those who would not submit according to the terms of man? Jesus said if he was lifted up, he would draw (drag) ALL men to him...is this just to present them for slaughter?

 

I have no desire to turn this into a debate, I want to remind you of what you have said and ask you if it is truly GOD. If it is, then there is something very wrong with todays version of christianity...there is no difference than any other threat based religion with what you are stating, yet millions actually believe this is how god works. Incredible to think we have it all figured out, and then state it with such surety as to suck the life out of anyone who dares question it. Fascinating to think so many worship and love THIS manner of god. Could it be we have turned the things of God into the traditions of men, along with the corruption that is within the heart of men? Our creator is not a patsy, nor is He how you describe, if he IS, then his requirements of us are null and void, why not take the sword now and operate the same way as Daash,Daesh? it would save this god some time, so he could move right on to torture.

 

That's all from me sir, but someone had to at the very least question this damning theology which is opposite of what I read. Perhaps it depends on the eyes of the beholder how one perceives God, or maybe men have indeed again turned the Creator into a creature, and worship that image.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Jim1cor13

[Nelg]

I'm not saying there is no deity but No I surely don't think that God wrote books.

The supreme being could not find a better way to communicate than to scribble ink on paper and in a language that over 75 % of the world at the time could not understand.? And Nelg I will never follow or believe anything that promotes or uses fear to entice people to

believe in it. That is exactly the tactic that Daesh is using to spread its word and control the population.

On the contrary, God does not use fear.  Fear is the results of an individual's own sin and unbelief.  The destiny is chosen as one lives in this world. Human beings, being who they are, has chosen unbelief and sin.  God's love for mankind is the reason He came in Jesus Christ.  What an individual could not do, Christ did.  Man could not DO or LIVE a sinless life. Jesus did.  He had no sin.  He did all that mankind could not do.  His death on the cross, His taking our punishment in Hades, His giving us His Spirit were all accomplished out of His love.  

The way that any individual can have total forgiveness and be made pure and spotless and acceptable to enter into Heaven is by faith, repentance, and being baptized as a participation in His death, burial and resurrection.  Then the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the grave will also raise the believer.  When judgment comes, there is not standing before Him and having our good deeds and our bad deeds searched out and revealed.  THAT will not happen if we are a child of God.  We have freedom from sin, freedom from judgment and punishment, freedom from eternal death.  We live with Him forever!  

Now what in all of that promotes fear?  Rather it promotes love and hope.  The gospel of Christ is "good news" and not bad news.  

 

The only things that I know that God wrote are short.  1.  He wrote the ten commandments and gave them to Moses. 2.  He wrote a condemning statement to Belshazzar, "NENE, MENE, TEKEL UPHARSIN."  Interpretation: God has numbered your kingdom and put an end to it. You have been weighed on the scales and found deficient. Your kingdom has been divided and given over to the Medes and Persians.

3.  Then there is the writing by Jesus in the sand when the adulterous woman was about to be stoned.  

 

The rest of the time He gave men His words and they wrote them down, or He guided them in writing what He wanted written. That writing is the word of God that we have today.  So you are right about His writing but wrong about the conclusion.  God is the Author of the Bible, but He used 60 writers to accomplish His revelation to us.  

[Nelg]

First, there is NO disrespect intended from any of my comments...only serious questions of your theology:

 

Quote: "Second, Daesh uses the follow us or die tactic, you have no choice. GOD and the Bible does not do that. Yes, it does give a harsh reality of what will happen if you do not accept GOD and ask for his forgiveness, but where the difference lies is that you have a choice."

 

Where is the choice? How is this different than Daash,Daesh? They say "follow or die", YOU say God gives a choice...follow his word OR be tormented forever, unending, never forgiveness...how is THIS different? It is the same tactic, only delayed according to your interpretation right? So God tells us to Love your enemies, do good to them, yet He is going to do the exact opposite to anyone who will not submit? Is not that being a hipocrite? Does that not make the "love" of God a travesty within your own definition? Does God truly need to threaten his creation in order for them to understand him and love him? Really?

 

"When he returns, he is coming with a sword in his hand to take care of business."

 

So according to your interpretation, your god is no different than what we see in this world today? Ultimately, slaughter is his game for those who never heard of him, those who would not submit to THIS god? Your god needs to use a physical sword to 'take care of business' AND make a point? What IS his sword? Is it his word, Logos or is it a physical sword of slaughter? So how is your god different than other divine tyrants throughout the millenia? So in reality, there is NO difference according to you, when you compare to Daash,Daesh, it is only just a matter of time, same result for those who would not submit according to the terms of man? Jesus said if he was lifted up, he would draw (drag) ALL men to him...is this just to present them for slaughter?

 

I have no desire to turn this into a debate, I want to remind you of what you have said and ask you if it is truly GOD. If it is, then there is something very wrong with todays version of christianity...there is no difference than any other threat based religion with what you are stating, yet millions actually believe this is how god works. Incredible to think we have it all figured out, and then state it with such surety as to suck the life out of anyone who dares question it. Fascinating to think so many worship and love THIS manner of god. Could it be we have turned the things of God into the traditions of men, along with the corruption that is within the heart of men? Our creator is not a patsy, nor is He how you describe, if he IS, then his requirements of us are null and void, why not take the sword now and operate the same way as Daash,Daesh? it would save this god some time, so he could move right on to torture.

 

That's all from me sir, but someone had to at the very least question this damning theology which is opposite of what I read. Perhaps it depends on the eyes of the beholder how one perceives God, or maybe men have indeed again turned the Creator into a creature, and worship that image.

Jim, I totally disagree with the theology you have written above.  It sounds "wise" but it is not.  It is far from the wisdom which comes from above.  It is nice to hear that God is all love and kindness and that He would not hurt the most terrible sinner, but that is not biblical.  He would and did and will. Unless the individual comes in faith to Him.  

Do you actually believe the revelation in the Scripture, the Bible?  Or do you hunt and pick what you want to believe and discard the rest?  Do you even understand the holiness of God as revealed in Scripture?  Apparently not with what you have written.  Certainly God is a loving God!  But the foremost attribute is His holiness.  How do you define "holiness?"  Do you fine your definition in the Bible or is it just your "feeling" that He could not be a "holy God" and "loving God" at the same time?  

I'm really set back at some of the trite and misconstrued understandings you have of God and the Scripture.  One cannot even understand the love of God without understanding His holiness, justice, and loving mercy.  Do you not understand His love?   

[SocalDinar]

Jim, I totally disagree with the theology you have written above.  It sounds "wise" but it is not.  It is far from the wisdom which comes from above.  It is nice to hear that God is all love and kindness and that He would not hurt the most terrible sinner, but that is not biblical.  He would and did and will. Unless the individual comes in faith to Him.  

Do you actually believe the revelation in the Scripture, the Bible?  Or do you hunt and pick what you want to believe and discard the rest?  Do you even understand the holiness of God as revealed in Scripture?  Apparently not with what you have written.  Certainly God is a loving God!  But the foremost attribute is His holiness.  How do you define "holiness?"  Do you fine your definition in the Bible or is it just your "feeling" that He could not be a "holy God" and "loving God" at the same time?  

I'm really set back at some of the trite and misconstrued understandings you have of God and the Scripture.  One cannot even understand the love of God without understanding His holiness, justice, and loving mercy.  Do you not understand His love?   

[SocalDinar]

 Do you not understand His love? 

 

My 13 Year old niece was tortured and raped by a man my sister knew from their church.    Thats not a merciful God. 

Their lives were destroyed.  

 

So this individual comes to faith with God and all is  good.  What a joke.

[Jim1cor13]

Hi nelg

 

If my comments seem trite to you, that is not my fault, it is your

perception and judgment. I understand enough of love to know

if God is love, and just, and merciful, then His justice can never

include the myth of 'eternal torment' nor is this kind of message

taught in scripture, IF one researches the root languages.

 

Nothing trite about my comments, only amazed that thoughtful

people could ever teach what is contrary to the nature and character

of God. "Hell" is the grave, so is "sheol" yet men adopted pagan

influence and it somehow became fact. If the wages of sin is death,

when was it added that those wages were also "endless torment"?

Unless one has some understanding of ancient pagan philosophies,

it is easy to think these doctrines originated with christianity which

in itself is bizarre.

 

Is God love? Is he holy? Is he just? Is he merciful? if so,

then there is no way to attach traditions of men to his character,

and any punishment that goes beyond the crime means God is

none of the above. Sadistic men adopted much of the torture

doctrines due to the desire to exercise power and control over others.

They turned the creator into a creature themselves, and it is so today.

We all must answer for our heart and actions and take responsibility

for them, especially how we treat others.

 

I have been around the block a few times Glen, 35 years worth of listening

to lies from the pulpit and from those desiring to sell the most books

using drama and hollywood style nonsense. I know how the game works,

and I have witnessed enough personally to see the destructive nature

of certain teachings on peoples lives and know of more than one who ended

up in an institution due to these teachings that were drilled into them as if to

keep them "controlled" and it worked to the point of mental torture. Most are

content to accept whatever they are told, many never question those things,

I learned to question everything, and that has taught me much.

 

I have no desire to bicker or debate, I mentioned that already, but I am replying to

you out of respect. I do respect your thoughts, but I have no desire to sway anyone

nor do I want them to think as I do...I only want them to THINK and learn to question

everything by seeking beyond the veil of confusion that is every where today.

 

Have a safe 4th of July

Edited July 3, 2015 by Jim1cor13

[SocalDinar]

Very well said  Jim. 

Thank You very much

[Nelg]

 Do you not understand His love? 

 

My 13 Year old niece was tortured and raped by a man my sister knew from their church.    Thats not a merciful God. 

Their lives were destroyed.  

 

So this individual comes to faith with God and all is  good.  What a joke.

 

With all my heart I hurt for you.  I had a close friend in High School who went to college on a scholastic scholarship.  She was a bright, beautiful girl.  One evening while she was out jogging, someone raped her, tied her to a tree, and her throat was cut.  This was a vile and despicable act of violence.  No one on campus could believe this could have happen to her.  She was just starting her junior year and her life was ahead of her.  Our hometown was shocked and dismayed.  At the funeral nearly the entire community was there along with her friends from college.  What was amazing is that the prayers at the service were prayers for her family, the friends, and the person who did this terrible and violent act.  Those prayers were that God would work in His life to bring about his repentance, forgiveness, and salvation.  The sad thing was that they never found the murderer.  That was over 50 years ago now. 

I pray that you and your family will have a loving and forgiving spirit and that they can overcome such action by a wicked individual.  Justice will be given to these individuals; if not in this life, it will be in the next. 

Churches are not free from sinful actions.  And because a person attends church does not make him a person dedicated to God.  That is a choice that he must make and no one else can make it for him.  God does not force that choice; the person must make that choice.  Either one chooses to follow after God and the Holy Spirit, or one chooses the way of his/her own making, a path the Spirit calls "flesh." which is worldly and from Satan and not God. 

But your question (or comment) is a legitimate one.  Such negative things as human suffering, man's inhumanity to man are held to be incompatible with the existence of a just, merciful, and powerful deity.

Three hundred years before Christ, Epicurus gave this problem its classical philosophic formulation:  If God wants to prevent evil but cannot, he is not omnipotent; it he is powerful enough to prevent evil but will not, he is not benevolent; if he neither can or desires to prevent evil, there is no good reason to think of him as "divine" at all; it he both can and wishes to prevent evil, there is no way to account for its presence in our experience; thus, since evil clearly does exist, we much conclude that no omnipotent and omni-bevolent God exists.    

Some think that because God is all powerful, that there are no limits to what He can do. But that definition will not do. It is inaccurate.  It is better to understand “God can do all things” as that God can do all things that are possible.” That is, God can do all things that is not self-contradictory or in violation of moral perfection. 

To say that God is unable to make a rock so bid He cannot life it, a plane which is larger on the inside than the outside, or a knife so sharp it can slice bread thinly enough to have only on side, or a round square is not to admit that things have been discovered that God could do if he had more power. But all these things entail logical contradictions.  These are things that not subject to accomplishment.  God cannot act in violation of his own moral perfection.  And, unless God is bound to operate within the laws of logic – that is, unable to perform self-contradictory things – He could exist and decree that propositions in contradiction can still be true. 

The reality is that moral and natural evils exist in the world.  Moral evil is everything that is thought of as “sin.” It is man’s rebellion against his Creator, His failure to live by the right standards God has revealed, and his inhumanities to his fellow creatures.  War, lying, murder, rape – all these are specific instances of moral evil.  (Natural evils signifies a broad range of things lying outside man’s culpability that create or increase human pain and suffering:  parasites, earthquakes, birth defects, diseases, etc. )

God did not create humanity with either a proneness to sin or the predetermined choice of sin.  He created us with moral freedom.  If this freedom is genuine rather than apparent, then the misuse of that freedom is hardly an indictment of God.  When I abuse the freedom, and sin against God or man, I am responsible, and I am culpable.  Since my sinful act was neither predetermined nor caused by God, the responsibility and culpability cannot be assigned to God, but to me! 

Humanity is responsible for demonstrating the likeness to the Creator by living in the world by reason (knowing the will of God) and with moral responsibility (doing the will of God).  In order for mankind to exercise its rational and ethical sensibilities, human beings had to be placed in an environment suited to that purpose; thus, the Earth.  The Earth is a place of challenge to the intellectual, moral, and spiritual sensibilities of individuals.

As parents we sometimes give our children challenging tasks to perform – some which involve a degree of personal danger.  Teachers typically give stiff exams and demanding projects to their students.  Yet we do not regard the parent or the teacher as wicked.  We see them a challenging the growth potential of their children or students and attempting to bring out their best possibilities.  It is discipline for development; a completing a task that will make them intellectually and morally stronger.

Exertion, challenge, and facign of difficulties could hardly be removed from this world that we inhabit without defeating the divine purpose to bring out the full potential in human beings.  In a world where suffering and terrible events are eliminated, rational and moral qualities are only excess baggage without real significance to human nature, responsibility, or behavior. 

Simply put, it would mean that no wrong action could ever have bad effects and that no pieve of carelessness or bad judgment in dealing with the world could ever lead to harmful consequences.  ISIS, with their mentality of destruction, murder, theft, rape, persecution, could not do any harm at all.  Their actions would miraculously result in no harm.  Money would magically appear at the banks, their desecration of historic monuments would be restored, bodies of those killed would be resurrected and their heads restored, bombs dropped and missiles sent would be float into outer space where they could do no harm to anyone. 

While such possibilities COULD be realized in a world created by a God of unlimited power, they COULD NOT be realized consistent with His intention to have this world serve a character-development, faith building, purpose. 

We sometimes overlook the fact that pain is not always evil.  Most often it is a good thing in human experience.  It is an essential mechanism for our survival.  Without the ability to experience pain, our bodies are robbed of protection. How does one know how hot to run the bath water so as not to scald and peel off one’s flesh? How does someone with an inflamed appendix know to seek medical help before it is too late? Pain is generally an instrumental good in our experience.  It is part of the wise design of our bodies by an infinitely good God.

The death of the physical body is not intrinsically evil.  The death of physical organisms is necessary to our world.  The sin of Adam brought physical, spiritual, and eternal death into the world.  But the death that came as a direct result of the sin of Adam and Eve was spiritual death (the separation from divine fellowship) they experienced in the Garden of Eden.  Mankind’s physical death was an indirect consequence of his spiritual sin and death. 

Pain is not an evidence against God’s existence, power, or love.  Physical death is not intrinsically evil.  Both pain and death can serve good as well as bad purposes.  Sin-moral evil that results from the abuse of freedom-is the only intrinsic evil in human experience. 

God is not morally blameworthy for allowing the world to come into being with evil. He created the world and us for a morally praiseworthy goal, our betterment. The ultimate complication in this is the individual’s intentional harm to others through the misuse of his moral freedom.  Thus, individual steal, murder, lie, and rape. God is on the causal agent who has driven man to these actions.  He is a loving Creator who has given a good gift (moral freedom) to his creatures, only to see His creation suffer, and Himself to suffer, from the perversion of that freedom. 

In Jesus Christ we see the ultimate divine response to the human predicament.  The God who created all things, Jesus Christ, subjected Himself to natural laws and human vulnerability.  He took the pain of His creation to Himself.  He took on our sins and punishment for those sins, and died a physical, spiritual, and eternal death on behalf of His creation.  Through His unique resurrection, He defeated sin and death and gave to believers, eternal life. 

God’s grace in a believer’s life is not intended to save him from trouble.  It is intended to save him from defeat.  Understanding that life is best measured in nearness to God, instead of in the externals of this life, changes the way one looks at life in general.  Anything that takes one away from God is evil – even if pleasurable, exciting, and done in the context of comfort.  Everything that brings one nearer to God – even if unpleasant at the time – is good.  From this perspective, suffering does not disallow the possibility of faith, but makes it only more reasonable.   

[Nelg]

Jim, thank you for responding to my post.  When addressing someone who does not believe I take a more tactful approach.  When addressing someone I think is a believer and teach I become more pointed and forceful in my questions and comments.  Whether you wanted it or not your post to 8^th ID was presented as a challenge to his position and belief, which was a opening folly in debate. 

Debate or rather a friendly discussion with those who do not hold the same theological position is not disrespectful but honoring the person. Knowledge is advanced (one would hope) and God is glorified.  Peter wrote to be ready to give an answer to all those who ask a reason for the hope one has.  Thus, we must be ready to discuss eternal and spiritual positions.   

Concerning what you wrote, yes, it is my biblical position that there is an eternal punishment by a Holy God for those who choose to walk in unbelief and disobedience to Him.  Such a position is not new, but is taught throughout the Bible.  It is base on His Holiness. 

No thinking Christian would doubt that the death of Christ on the cross was and is essential for mankind’s salvation.  It is part of ones understand of salvation history.  But why was it necessary?  What is the driving force behind the predestinated and the uniquely executed of plan to redeem the world through the blood of Christ? 

For many years Christians have rightly taught that the death of Christ on the cross was essential for mankind’s salvation.  The cross is the greatest event in the history of salvation.  As the cross is the victory over sin, so the resurrection is the triumph over all the cruelty and barbarianism of humanity.   

The death of Christ is the essential element in Christianity.  Other religions base their claim to recognition on the teaching of their founders.  Christianity is distinguished from all of them by the importance it assigns to the death and resurrection of the Lord.  Take away the death and resurrection and you reduce Christianity to the level of a great moral and ethical religion, but one that cannot claim to be redemptive. 

It is at the cross that the sins of the world were borne by the Innocent Jesus Christ in order that the guilty might not suffer God’s wrath.

But why is wrath and punishment necessary?  To answer that question we must consider the holiness of God.

R. C. Sproul makes this insightful observation from Isaiah 6:

“The Bible says that God is holy, holy, holy. Not that He is merely holy, or even holy, holy. He is holy, holy, holy. The Bible never says that God is love, love, love, or mercy, mercy, mercy, or wrath, wrath, wrath, or justice, justice, justice. It does say that He is holy, holy, holy, the whole earth is full of His glory.”2 Samuel 6:2) which was to be hidden in the holiest place in the tabernacle, the “holy of holies.” According to God’s instructions, it was to be transported by the Kohathites who carried it by holding onto poles inserted through its attached rings (see Exodus 25:10-22; Numbers 4:1-20). No one was to look into the ark, or they would die.

The day the ark was transported to Jerusalem was a great and happy moment. But they had forgotten how holy this ark was, because it was the place where God’s presence was to abide. Rather than transporting the ark as instructed in the law, the ark was placed on a new ox cart. It was a most jubilant procession as the ark made its way home. What a happy time. But when the oxen stumbled, and it looked as though the cart might be overturned and hurled to the ground, Uzzah reached out to steady the ark. Instantly, he was struck dead by God.

David’s first response was frustration and anger with God. Why had God been so harsh with Uzzah? David seems to have forgotten God’s instructions in the Law about how the ark was to be transported. He also seems to have forgotten how many had previously died when due reverence for the presence of God associated with the ark was not shown. God had spoiled their celebration, and David was miffed. Only upon reflection did David realize the gravity of the error. And concerning Uzzah, God struck him dead because of his irreverence (2 Samuel 6:7).

Irreverence is a dangerous malady. Even when our motives are sincere and we are actively involved in the worship of God, we must constantly be mindful of the holiness of God and maintain a reverence for Him manifested by our obedience to His instructions and commands.

Isaiah and the Holiness of God (Isaiah 6:1-10)

The death of Uzziah seems to have spelled the end of an era, a golden era, for Judah. The “good times” were over; the “hard times” were about to commence as verses 9 and 10 indicate.

Isaiah’s ministry is commencing from a human point of view at the very worst possible time. His ministry was not going to be regarded a success (as if many of the prophets of old were successful). He was in for a chilly reception. He and his message would be spurned. What did Isaiah need to give him the proper perspective and endurance to persevere in such hard times? The answer: a vision of the holiness of God!

This is precisely what God gave to Isaiah—a dramatic revelation of His holiness. “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory” (verse 3). The earth quaked, and the temple was filled with smoke. It was as dramatic a vision of God and His holiness as one could wish to see.

Isaiah’s response is far from what we hear today from many who claim to teach biblical truth. He was not impressed with his “significance.” His “self-esteem” was not enhanced. Just the opposite took place. His vision of the holiness of God caused Isaiah to lament his utter sinfulness. If God was holy, Isaiah saw he was not. Isaiah confessed his own sinfulness and that of his people.

Paul’s reverence for the word of God is similar to that of Isaiah – Gal. 1:6-8. 

John’s vision in Rev 1, when He sees the glory of God, that holiness underscores what he writes in Rev 22:18-19. 

Isaiah was to serve as a prophet in a day when his message would be rejected and resisted. The sinful disposition of man is to avoid pain and persecution, and thus alter, if possible, the message and method of communicating the message of Christ so men will respond more favorably. At the outset of Isaiah’s ministry, God manifested His holiness to Isaiah to motivate him to be faithful to his calling and to the message he was to be given. Isaiah never lost the vision of whom he served and whom he must both fear and please.

The Holiness of God and the Church (Acts 5:1-16; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 11:17-34)

The establishment of the kingdom of God, the church, did not diminish the need for holiness.

God expects the church to be holy. “Be holy! For I am holy!”

We should learn three important things from the holiness of God.

In virtue of God’s holiness He has instituted a moral law for the world.  These laws have sanctions attached.  In virtue of His holiness He executes His laws, involving the bestowal of rewards and punishments. 

What does this mean for mankind?  Will God, because He is holy and just, allow or direct His wrath toward man?  Since God must be in complete harmony with His justice, then certainly we will be judged as sinners.  Because no individual can keep either the Law of God or the law of their own conscience, all human beings are sinners and subject to receive God’s judgment or wrath (Rm 2:5; 3:9, 19-21).

God cannot lay down a law, attach a penalty, and threaten infliction and proceed no further.  Therefore, in every instance of disobedience or transgress of the law, the penalty of law must be inflicted, either personally or upon the bases of a substitute. 

Justice would allow the substitution of one person for another, provided that in the substitution no injustice is done to the rights of any of the parties. 

In other words, justice demands the punishment of the sinner, but it may also accept the sacrifice of another in the place of the sinner, as in the case of Christ being a substituting for us.  There is a gulf of separation between mankind and God.  We are sinful. (Romans 3:23)

Without sanctification (purification from sin) "Pursue . . . the sanctification without which no one will see God." (Hebrews 12:14)

Isaiah 59:1-2 -- Sin has separated us from God. Before sin came, mankind and God had fellowship with each other; now that fellowship is broken and impossible.  (covered above)

God’s holiness must hate sin and evil. (Tread carefully with understanding what is being said.  God hates “sin and evil” and NOT THE SINNER!  An attack upon “sin” is not an attack upon the person, but a the sin itself.)

God cannot free the sinner from the penalty of sin and death until the demands of justice are satisfied.  Justice is the outgrowth of holiness. Since holiness is God’s fundamental attribute it is only reasonable that He should be given satisfaction to remove the outrage of sin.  When we talk about justice we mean more than the character of being made right.  By justice we mean that moral excellence is the attribute that demands the distribution of rewards or punishment depending on the action of obedience or sin. 

In the case of sin, God must, because of His justice, punish sin through and by His wrath. In virtue of the holiness, He has instituted a moral government in the world, imposed just laws upon the creatures, and attached sanctions to them.  Those sanctions involve distribution of rewards and punishments.

In every instance of transgression, the penalty of law must be inflicted, either personally or vicariously; either upon the transgressor or upon his substitute.

Wrath toward sin is the results of God’s holiness.

God must be hostile toward corruption (Psalms 104:35; Romans 6:23).

The wrath of God toward the sinner is real (He 10:30-31; 12:29).

The wrath of God is a righteous wrath, and not like human wrath (Rm 2:1-11).

The wrath of God is directed toward unbelief and wrongdoing of any form (Jn 3:36; Ep 5:6).

Wrath is the administration of justice for failure in holiness. For God to uphold His holiness, justice must be administered.  To withhold justice would be to deny that He is holy. 

There is nothing that we can do to satisfy the justice of God.  No amount of works, or sacrifice, or obedience, or homage can produce in God the desire to remove the punishment for sin.  In such a state we are hopelessly lost and destined for the wrath of God.

God, because of His love, provided us a satisfaction for sin, Jesus Christ. Such a love must prompt us to love Him. There is only one way that I can avoid the penalty of sin and that is through the Substitute, Jesus Christ our Lord.

So what can one conclude from all this I have written?  To remove the wrath of God for sin and death one would be removing the necessity for Jesus Coming in His Incarnation, the necessity of His death, and thus no power in the resurrection. 

(More to come . . . )

[1]

[MyLadiesDaddy]

 Do you not understand His love? 

 

My 13 Year old niece was tortured and raped by a man my sister knew from their church.    Thats not a merciful God. 

Their lives were destroyed.  

 

So this individual comes to faith with God and all is  good.  What a joke.

Mark 9:42

 

42And whosoever shall offend one of [these] little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstonewere hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

 

Offences must come because evil does exist. But how many souls have chosen to turn 

 

their backs on God now because of this evil and despicable deed? 

 

Not only did the evil take your  niece's virtue and caused her such pain, but because of this 

 

evil it has taken your soul too. 

 

Consider this, if you will. 

 

If there is a God and if Jesus Christ is his son, then that would mean that Lucifer exist also.

 

If all that is true, and were're told to worship God in Church doesn't it make sense that Lucifer 

 

would send his demonic controlled people to the house of God. I myself have met some of the 

 

most evil people I've ever known right in Church. But I understand that it not God who is evil,

 

It's Lucifer and his minions. Does that ease the pain you and you niece have lived with? 

 

Probably not, but I can tell you that Jesus Loves you and your niece and that he will 

 

ease all pain. Don't allow Lucifer to cause your family more harm. As always I will be praying 

 

for you and your family.

[sxsess]

Good post 8th! I agree this country was build by great men & women through the principles of God. IMO it's too late to turn back, primarily with the coming financial crisis. It is now just a matter of time before the USD will crash. All we can do is prepare ourselves with reducing our exposure to the $. I personally have been planning for this in several ways. When this happens, I fear to think of what will take place. But one thing for sure, it's not going to be good.