The God Zoo

[Cheerful Charlie]

Animals Shall Be Vegetarian

Genesis 1:30
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every
thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given
every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Isaiah 11:6-7
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw
like the ox.

Isaiah 65:25
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be
the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

-----

So God is responsible for predation and the absurd cruelty of nature. he could end all of that if we take the bible as true as revelation.
But God does not. here is some more unnecessary evil to consider.

Save the cute baby bunnies and baby squirrels, God! End predation now!

 

[Learner]

Well its not a contradiction to a theist. Besides what do YOU think the cause of the contradiction is...why is it there? Would you/did you account for any plausible probable approach... using the skeptic mind, wondering from an interest curiosity, whether the God narrative is meant to be portrayed by the authors as: an All-Loving God, a not-so All-Loving God,or pure-evil-god maybe due to being a grammatical error or that translations into English had mistakes made by scribes/ interpreters or they just left those parts to confuse you? How do you understand it?

Of course you don't need to believe the story to look into a little more detail as for example you didn't really explain, if at all, why there is the "contradiction" to which could add a little more weight imo....maybe with a little effort.... other than just bringing up verses,
No context no concept no argument.

(theists are still studying, investigating and moving on)



What do you mean? Is there a contradiction if a nation goes to war against terrorists or drug lords for the love of its people?

We have two different pictures being painted of God, incompatible pictures that present us with a logical contradiction, a contradiction that does nothing to resolve the issue of God deliberately and knowingly creating evil.

Two different pictures yes. One is yours and one is mine and thats it really.

Based on what you say, you don't appear to understand the nature of a contradiction.

That presented with two incompatible claims or propositions, if one is true the other must be false, both cannot be true. Both, of course, can be false.

Nor does this issue have anything remotely to do with going to war to fight oppression or evil. This is about the bible telling us that God creates evil on the one hand, but on the other is He is a God of Love that does not create evil....which is clearly a contradiction.

I suspect that you do understand but are unwilling to face the implications, which given the nature of faith is understandable.

Oh dear ... the "don't understand response" it's bound to happen sometime. Your contradiction as you see it your interpretation, if even. I just don't think your proposition(s) is logically correct .. makes no sense, perhaps you take to the authors writing about a schizo-god or sumink.

 

[Learner]

Animals Shall Be Vegetarian

Genesis 1:30
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every
thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given
every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Isaiah 11:6-7
6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down
with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
and a little child shall lead them.
7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw
like the ox.

Isaiah 65:25
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be
the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.

-----

So God is responsible for predation and the absurd cruelty of nature. he could end all of that if we take the bible as true as revelation.
But God does not. here is some more unnecessary evil to consider.

Save the cute baby bunnies and baby squirrels, God! End predation now!

Hey maybe that's what is was like in the beginning until fork-tongue came and ruined it all ... nature 'n' stuff. In these days of sorrows, pastors and believers are preaching to all corners of the world reaching more people than they did in church via internet would you believe? Once all the world hear's the gospel .... who knows what lays ahead in the near future?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Who knows what the future holds? More dead cute baby animals.

 

[DBT]

Based on what you say, you don't appear to understand the nature of a contradiction.

That presented with two incompatible claims or propositions, if one is true the other must be false, both cannot be true. Both, of course, can be false.

Nor does this issue have anything remotely to do with going to war to fight oppression or evil. This is about the bible telling us that God creates evil on the one hand, but on the other is He is a God of Love that does not create evil....which is clearly a contradiction.

I suspect that you do understand but are unwilling to face the implications, which given the nature of faith is understandable.

Oh dear ... the "don't understand response" it's bound to happen sometime. Your contradiction as you see it your interpretation, if even. I just don't think your proposition(s) is logically correct .. makes no sense, perhaps you take to the authors writing about a schizo-god or sumink.

The ' you don't appear to understand' response happened because to all appearances you did not appear to recognize logical contradictions.

If God is love and love is not vindictive, as defined by the bible, and the very same books describes God as acting vindictively, that is a contradiction.

If you claim that it isn't a contradiction, you need to give reasons why it is not.

If there is one example of God being vidinctive, creating evil, etc, in the bible (of which there are plenty), it's no good quoting verses that tell us how good and holy God is because it just presents a contradiction that can't just be dismissed with the pretence that there isn't a contradiction.

 

[Learner]

Who knows what the future holds? More dead cute baby animals.

Genius.... your post #81 'Animals shall be vegetarian' could be the answer to some reduction at least.... No lamb chops, no chicken chops, no anything meaty.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I eat baby carrots and I'm not ashamed of it. The babies taste best. And don't hand me that "It's murder" bullshit. If you're against carricide, then, for goodness sake, don't eat baby carrots, but don't get in my way when I want to wash a few of them babes down with a Diet Coke. They're tender.

 

[Learner]

The ' you don't appear to understand' response happened because to all appearances you did not appear to recognize logical contradictions.

If God is love and love is not vindictive, as defined by the bible, and the very same books describes God as acting vindictively, that is a contradiction.

If you claim that it isn't a contradiction, you need to give reasons why it is not.

I didn't explain well enough perhaps. I DO see they are contradictions, I didn't say they weren't. I'm saying I don't see them as real conflicting contradictions to the theology as you seem to do.. meaning there are several reasons you could explain why they exist as contradictions.

If there is one example of God being vidinctive, creating evil, etc, in the bible (of which there are plenty), it's no good quoting verses that tell us how good and holy God is because it just presents a contradiction that can't just be dismissed with the pretence that there isn't a contradiction.

What do you actually make of the contradictions?

Behind the contradiction underlining the argument, would you for example: take there to be errors with the texts e.g. the proposition that the authors got it all logically wrong, regardless whether the story was made up or not - or the text got muddled by mistake when they translated into other laguages?

Do you base what you see in the contradictions ON the authors lacking the imaginative articulation to write stories without checking what they write down?

Is the God of the bible good or evil or a bit of both because you interpret a contextual meaning from a verse in relation to the rest of verses on the page(s)? What are they trying to portray here?

Some believer may think there was a conspiracy to deliberately sabotage the text to confuse and mislead believers.

There are the contradictions indeed but they don't actually tell you what's being intentionally portrayed just by pointing them out ... or that it could tell you whether or not the bible is true without any underlined reason for the contradictions since a theist would also agree with you that textually the contradictions are there.

 

[Learner]

I eat baby carrots and I'm not ashamed of it. The babies taste best. And don't hand me that "It's murder" bullshit. If you're against carricide, then, for goodness sake, don't eat baby carrots, but don't get in my way when I want to wash a few of them babes down with a Diet Coke. They're tender.

It's a tough one, I have been called a vegetable once or twice. I need a savior.

 

[DBT]

Behind the contradiction underlining the argument, would you for example: take there to be errors with the texts e.g. the proposition that the authors got it all logically wrong, regardless whether the story was made up or not - or the text got muddled by mistake when they translated into other laguages?

Do you base what you see in the contradictions ON the authors lacking the imaginative articulation to write stories without checking what they write down?

Is the God of the bible good or evil or a bit of both because you interpret a contextual meaning from a verse in relation to the rest of verses on the page(s)? What are they trying to portray here?

Some believer may think there was a conspiracy to deliberately sabotage the text to confuse and mislead believers.

There are the contradictions indeed but they don't actually tell you what's being intentionally portrayed just by pointing them out ... or that it could tell you whether or not the bible is true without any underlined reason for the contradictions since a theist would also agree with you that textually the contradictions are there.

Why would it be a matter of errors in the text? Even if that was the case, it would be a major problem for the bible as an inspired set of works. Nor is it just the verses that explicitly state God as the author of evil, it's also implied right at the beginning in the set up and 'fall' of Adam and Eve and cursing of the whole world for what was basically a naive decision. Which is hardly an act of love, mercy, kindness or justice as defined in the NT.

 

[Learner]

Why would it be a matter of errors in the text? Even if that was the case, it would be a major problem for the bible as an inspired set of works.

I merely wanted to clarify whether you thought these were errors, like... in the thinking, lack of thinking, anything goes or accidents,... being that there exist these contradctions. Getting to understand the merits of anyone who only highlights verses by not displaying any enquiry to the causes of contradictions... to make the case from these contradictions e.g. for us to be sure where you're coming from and that you're (plural) not debating by trying to be disengenuous or lazy by merely making the weak case, based soley on the notion that the verses "don't-make-sense" - which gets no-where.

Not you directly ... but it's likened to (for lack of better analogy) a Barrister (UK) or equivalent solicitor advocate, arguing and even winning the case purely on technicalities and not based on the FULL merits of enquiry so to speak. Only bothering to deal with some infomation and disregarding the rest (which could be important) just to satisfy the result etc. & etc. (I always say atheists make good lawyers only jestingly)

Nor is it just the verses that explicitly state God as the author of evil, it's also implied right at the beginning in the set up and 'fall' of Adam and Eve and cursing of the whole world for what was basically a naive decision. Which is hardly an act of love, mercy, kindness or justice as defined in the NT.

These are valid points-of-view. These are points that can be made as cases to be challenged (I know you have done).

 

[remez]

From post 57. It is nice to be back.

Context changes nothing.

Text without context is pretext.

In fact the overall context of the verses that state that God creates evil supports the premise that God creates evil for His own purposes.

What verses? You have presented none to me? Thus how can you assert the context means nothing? What version of the bible are you using and why? Until you do so I can only generally address the verses you cited to Learner post 59.

Are you going to standby defending that your choosing of the KJV was not cherry picking?

If there are verses that clearly state that God not only creates evil and stirs up trouble but creates the evildoer for 'the day of evil' - which there are - what possible context could change what the verses into something they don't say....something completely opposite?

Clearly? Clearly?
Spin! Spin!

1. Regarding version of the bible. The KJV historically acknowledges the error in misinterpreting evil and calamities. The NKJV has accounted for this misinterpretation. Thus it is dishonest spin. You are exploiting a flaw (now corrected) of interpretation that has been publically acknowledged and corrected. If you choose to pursue this spin further, then brush up on your reasoning as to why KJV should be considered more reliable. Simply reasoning that the KJV is more accurate bc its older will only expose your ignorance. To spin that the modification was done bc it had to dodge your concern of evil would be arrogant. But I’m ready.

2. You are equivocating a description of judgement as evil to infer an actual creation of moral evil. God isn’t creating a thing of moral evil he is describing the judgement that is to come. That judgement to them will be evil. So related……

3. Is the execution of moral judgement to always be considered an act of creating evil? Are soldiers and police officers creating moral evil if in the course of their duty righteously enforce judgement? How much more so for a God with complete sovereignty?

4. As I stated earlier. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t logically argue both ends. Meaning God is guilty when he brings judgement upon evil doers (Chaldeans) and God is also guilty when he allows (your subjective) evil thing to go unpunished.

So please cite a verse or two. And if you are going to use the KJV make a case as to why. I’m ready.

Sorry but you have no case to argue. The bible says what it says and there is no changing what it says.

Not trying to change anything. Just trying to you my duty to expose your spin. The verses you quoted to Learner all fail to cover your spin or render conflict. But I’m willing to go verse by verse should you desire.

Here for good measure is just one……..the most common one………….

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

First here is that verse in more accurate versions………….
New International Version
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

New Living Translation
I create the light and make the darkness. I send good times and bad times. I, the LORD, am the one who does these things.

English Standard Version
I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things.

Berean Study Bible
I form the light and create the darkness; I bring prosperity and create calamity. I, the LORD, do all these things.

New American Standard Bible
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these.

New King James Version
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the LORD, do all these things.


Notice anything?
Cherry picking the version you distort is pure spin. Enough said?

Further….
You spun that context has no play. You couldn’t be more boring. The context here has fascinating.

4 For Jacob My servant’s sake,
And Israel My elect,
I have even called you by your name;
I have named you, though you have not known Me.
5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me,
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun to its setting
That there is none besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other;
7 I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.’…….NKJV

Isaiah was a prophesying to Cyrus. Yes Cyrus the Great. Consider the influence of Zoroastrian dualism specifically; Ahuramazda and Ahriman in Medeo-Persian history. Isaiah was speaking generally, but consider the possibility that to Cyrus, he was saying that he is the one God of Ahuramazda (good/light) and Ahriman (evil/darkness). Isaiah was profoundly asserting one God over all. Not dualistic gods. Not one light/one dark and one good/one bad. Incredible context. So yes the “ONE” God of light/darkness and prosperity /calamity can bring prosperity and/or calamity (not moral evil) upon those in judgement.

So once again…………….

There is no cherry picking.

There is no spin.

Context changes nothing.

……is to say the least……..in need of some life support.

 

[DBT]

From post 57. It is nice to be back.



Text without context is pretext.

Crock, that's a poor rationale. If a verse tells us that God creates both good and evil, context does not transform what the verse says and means into something else entirely.

What verses? You have presented none to me? Thus how can you assert the context means nothing? What version of the bible are you using and why? Until you do so I can only generally address the verses you cited to Learner post 59.

You stopped responding then Learner took over. So yes, you can take the verses that I quoted as examples that tell us that God is the author of evil.

Are you going to standby defending that your choosing of the KJV was not cherry picking?

Double Crock.

The eseential meaning of these verses is not altered by any translation (never mind descriptions of the attitude and behaviour of this God).

The Hebrew word ע (rah) is correctly interpreted as 'bad' or 'evil.'


As for the NIV translation, for example, of the word 'evil' into 'disaster;'


''Understandably, the New International Version translators saw fit to alter the prophet’s words by rendering the offensive Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “disaster” instead of correctly translating it as “bad” or “evil.” The New International Version Bible therefore mistranslates Isaiah 45:7 to read:

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes. This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

 

[remez]

Crock, that's a poor rationale. If a verse tells us that God creates both good and evil, context does not transform what the verse says and means into something else entirely.

The context of the thread here specifically is that there logically exists a conflict between an all loving, all powerful God and the existence of evil. Since moral evil exists then one can logically reason God doesn’t. AKA the logical problem of evil. You flung in your drive by spin in that CONTEXT.
So….
I’m naturally offering reasoning to counter the logical PoE. To support your position (with Learner) you cited verses that really don’t support your case, bc you’re spinning what you want to see into the interpretation of the verse.

First you began by cherry picking from the KJV, and ignoring all of the other versions, that more accurately translate the term evil. Why do all the other versions translate it differently……bc academically the context and more abundant manuscripts now available required this appropriate update. The KJV was translated centuries ago without the new evidences we now have. Thus in that verse it is understood to express Gods sovereignty over the prosperity or non-prosperity of humans communities as judgement over there behaviors. Thus it does not represent moral evil and support your logical PoE.

The eseential meaning of these verses is not altered by any translation (never mind descriptions of the attitude and behaviour of this God).

The Hebrew word ע (rah) is correctly interpreted as 'bad' or 'evil.'

The essential meaning is an interpretation. Not your simple assumption.

Hebrew was an ancient language, rah had several different meanings. It could mean moral evil or calamity. Now moral evil would support your case for a logical PoE. It clearly means calamity here in the context of the prophecy.
Further..............
The context of rah in the prophecy directly infers an act of sentencing following a judgement, which presents no conflict with the logical PoE. BTW many of your other verses failed in the same manner.

To make this clear…………..multiple meanings can occur…..

Even in our contemporary times we suffer this issue. If I were to say “After a strike the team will celebrate” then how many different meanings could you interpret? Is "strike" good or bad.
So
You see it really depends on the context of this being a union/labor conflict, mineral mine, tuna boat, bowling alley or MMA octagon. You’re naive to infer context does not affect meaning.

''Understandably, the New International Version translators saw fit to alter the prophet’s words by rendering the offensive Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “disaster” instead of correctly translating it as “bad” or “evil.” The New International Version Bible therefore mistranslates Isaiah 45:7

You are just whining for you assumption. I gave you the academics for why the change. And presented why various interpretations exists and context is the key to which is correct. You simply continue to spin your incorrect assumption.

The New International Version Bible therefore mistranslates Isaiah 45:7

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”

The word “disaster” inserted by the New International Version is misleading and purposely ambiguous so that the uninformed reader could conclude that this word refers to natural disasters, such as typhoons, earthquakes and hurricanes.

Precisely, bc that is what the context requires despite the unorthodox views represented in your link. Some biologists espouse eugenics. Does that require serious consideration by the academic orthodoxy? Does phrenology ring a bell?

This dubious translation was deliberately forged to conceal the prophet’s original message. As mentioned above, the King James Version correctly translates this verse, and renders the Hebrew word רָע (rah) as “evil.”

What a weekly contrived conspiracy of intent. In formal debate it’s a sign that the fight is over. You obviously didn’t read the whole prophecy. To infer something so contrary to the obvious is blind desperation. Perhaps you would like to try another verse?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Ezekiel 20:25–6
And this one says that the command was God: "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah" .

 

[remez]

Ezekiel 20:25–6
And this one says that the command was God: "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am Jehovah" .

Again you are blinded by your cherry picking. You don’t understand the context. If you are going to try to make a case for God committing moral evil you should understand what is going on with the verses you use to support your case.

These statutes were not created by God. They were created by the nation that the sovereign God was allowing to rule over them bc of their disobedience to him. Read the context. Read Judges 2 specifically 20-23. Learn the history of the Canaanite statues.

Your attempt doubly fails. He did not create these statutes and this was not an issue of God’s creating more evil but a description of their punishment designed by the nation that he allowed rule them.

Try again?

 

[DBT]

The context of the thread here specifically is that there logically exists a conflict between an all loving, all powerful God and the existence of evil. Since moral evil exists then one can logically reason God doesn’t. AKA the logical problem of evil. You flung in your drive by spin in that CONTEXT.

The is no spin on my part. The spin lies in denying what verses about God creating evil and acting in an evil manner (cursing the world for a minor error of judgement by a naive couple, etc) are saying and what they describe about the nature and character of God. The contradiction between the description of a God of Love and a God who deliberately creates evil and evildoers is quite clear.

Your rationale of 'context' or using KJV quotes does not work because, as pointed out, the Hebrew word רָע (rah) is best interpreted as 'evil' - which makes the KJV correct, and that other interpretations, NIV, etc, are wrong and misleading.

So….
I’m naturally offering reasoning to counter the logical PoE. To support your position (with Learner) you cited verses that really don’t support your case, bc you’re spinning what you want to see into the interpretation of the verse.

What I quoted supports my case that 1: God is said to create evil and 2: that there is a clear contradiction between NT descriptions of a God of Love and a God who deliberately creates evil and evildoers and 'vessels fitted for destruction.''

''A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time. Here are some simple examples of contradictions.

1. I love you and I don't love you.
2. Butch is married to Barb but Barb is not married to Butch.
3. I know I promised to show up today, but I don't see why I should come if I don't feel like it.
4. The restaurant opens at five o'clock and it begins serving between four and nine.
5. John Lasagna will be a little late for the party. He died yesterday.''

An example of contradictions in the bible being;

God is Love:
1. 'Love keeps no record of wrongs' and 'I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'
2. Love does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud and 'the Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies"
3. 'Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth' and 'therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.'
4. 'Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres' and 'shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?'
5. Love is patient, love is kind and 'he is a jealous God, he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.'

So:

If Love does not keep records of wrongs, Love cannot punish children for the 'sins of their fathers.

If Love does not delight in evil, Love does not knowingly and deliberately create evil and strife.

If Love always protects, Love does not create evil or 'vessels fitted for destruction.

Therefore your objections fail.

 

[remez]

The is no spin on my part. The spin lies in denying what verses about God creating evil and acting in an evil manner (cursing the world for a minor error of judgement by a naive couple, etc) are saying and what they describe about the nature and character of God. The contradiction between the description of a God of Love and a God who deliberately creates evil and evildoers is quite clear.

Then you are blind to the fact that you have yet to produce a single verse that supports your case. You ignore my take down of your last verse and simply keep bemoaning your assumptions.

Your rationale of 'context' or using KJV quotes does not work because, as pointed out, the Hebrew word רָע (rah) is best interpreted as 'evil' - which makes the KJV correct, and that other interpretations, NIV, etc, are wrong and misleading.

Again you are ignoring the scholarship I provided for the weakness of the KJV and are desperately repeating yourself in the hopes that it will eventually come true. Even the NKJV has more clearly translated the word on grounds of scholarship and not conspiratorial intent.

I can see that we are going to disagree on this issue regarding the weaker translation of the KJV. Your cherry picking this version exclusive to all of the other more accurate translations has been overtly established. I’m providing scholarship and reasoning and you are providing desperate repetition of your assumption without an ounce of support. Thus I’m willing to leave you to your blind faith on the issue of the KJV and rest my case before the jury.

What I quoted supports my case that 1: God is said to create evil and 2: that there is a clear contradiction between NT descriptions of a God of Love and a God who deliberately creates evil and evildoers and 'vessels fitted for destruction.''

I agree you presented that as evidence. But I then clearly made a case that your attempted submission fails to support your case. You did not address the complete shortcoming of your reasoning. You simply repeated your weak reasoning ignoring that case against it.

''A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time. Here are some simple examples of contradictions.

…..at the same time AND in the same manner. See we can agree.
Before we continue with your next attempt at submitting new scriptural evidence I remind you that Is 45:7 and Ez 20: 25-6 miserably fail to make your case. They only demonstrate your and CC’s complete lack of knowledge of scripture. Let alone expose your fallacy of cherry picking.

So onward…….

God is Love:
1. 'Love keeps no record of wrongs' and 'I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'
2. Love does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud and 'the Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies"
3. 'Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth' and 'therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.'
4. 'Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres' and 'shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?'
5. Love is patient, love is kind and 'he is a jealous God, he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.'

Not so fast. I understand where you are going and I'm unintimidated to redress, but where are your scripture references? You are making the same mistake you did earlier, ignoring the context. Quick ex….are the words “jealous” and “envy” to be considered negative in all contexts?

Let’s be fair. It reads like you heard it somewhere said by some atheist or copied it from some cite trying to make the same surface attempt to CREATE a PoE. Thus you need to be fair and cite your scriptural references.


But………….this part……..

So:

If Love does not keep records of wrongs, Love cannot punish children for the 'sins of their fathers.

If Love does not delight in evil, Love does not knowingly and deliberately create evil and strife.

If Love always protects, Love does not create evil or 'vessels fitted for destruction.

Therefore your objections fail.

……….is fine. That is your summation in your own words. In order for me to address your scriptural reasoning you need to properly reference the scripture. At that point I’ll show you where your summation is disconnected from the scripture.

 

[ideologyhunter]

OMG everyone's still here. At the same point. The rapture musta not happened yet.

 

[DBT]

Then you are blind to the fact that you have yet to produce a single verse that supports your case. You ignore my take down of your last verse and simply keep bemoaning your assumptions.

You ignore the fact of contradictions while playing a game of denial. A contradiction - S and its denial not-S - happens when we have two opposing propositions where both cannot be true, if one is true the other must be false...both can be false but both cannot be true.

So, for example, if God is Love and love keeps no record of wrongs, God as Love cannot punish generations of children for the sins of their fathers....or curse the whole world for the mistake of a naive couple who did not know about good and evil until they had eaten of the forbidden fruit.


"God is love." - 1 John 4:8


''Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.'' John I:4

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 New International Version (NIV)

Let’s be fair. It reads like you heard it somewhere said by some atheist or copied it from some cite trying to make the same surface attempt to CREATE a PoE. Thus you need to be fair and cite your scriptural references.

You know full well that I referenced my quotes in the original post. You complained about my use of KJV. You know they are quotes. You know it's in the bible.

……….is fine. That is your summation in your own words. In order for me to address your scriptural reasoning you need to properly reference the scripture. At that point I’ll show you where your summation is disconnected from the scripture.

I have already referenced these verses several times. You know I have. I don't need to reference them in a summary. Just check the references where they are given. You are playing games.