Why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving

[Gilrandir]

No to the first, yes to the second. He works from the situation people are in. So before the fall he made only two laws for man, have sex and eat , one negative, dont eat of a single tree. With noah and the survivors, another, with Moses and Israelite in the land of Canaan surrounded by Canaanites, another etc

The bold is wrong. He told them to produce offspring.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;

So he never mentioned eating, and having sex WITHOUT conception. Moreover, he never called it a law or commandment or by any other binding word.

And as for liability to change laws, why, a time might come when adultory or theft will stop being a sin (a violation of god's law), like it is the case with homosexuality now. Or is it still a sin?

All the time murder is wrong, killing is sometimes. If we make that distinction, than the supposed contradiction disapers.

You contradict yourself. Murder was never forbidden to Adam and Eve (as you have said, there were only two laws at that time, murder wasn't mentioned in either). So techinically, if Adam had murdered Eve - or vice versa - they wouldn't have done anything against God's will.

Later murder WAS wrong. But, as you have noted, God is liable to overlook his treaties.

As the same book [also see Ezekiel 18:20] Deuteronomy says

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Deut. 24:16

So one and the same book of Bible contains two mutually exclusive quotes. That's what I have been saying on the consistancy of Bible as a source.

Chapters and verses are man made thousands of years later.

Do you realize that this admission turns Bible from the ultimte authority bearing the word of God into a hearsay?

That is why the whole bible must be considered.

Since it contains mutually excluding statements (see above) it is useless.

This is why i think Christians have so many denominations. They try and build theology from man made verses or chapters alone. Calvinism is a great example imo.

The existence of denominations has many reasons (like political, economic, etc.) among which theological ones are among many but in no way dominant.

Its a good question I will look it up from a study i did on hebrews and Jesus being the image of god. But from the greek/hebrew the word does not mean physical, or at least does not have to. But relationship. I did a quick google search on your question from christian sources

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

This quote shows that god had at least two anthropomorphic images.

God does appear in human form many times in the ot and nt of course as well.

As a male or a female?

[HopAlongBunny]

Just a note.
Since we are talking about strictly OT, we cannot be talking about Christians. You do not have Christians until you have the NT.
To square anything in the OT with the teachings of Christ, it would have to meet (at minimum) the test of the Good Samaritan; perhaps that could be done with a few passages.
IMO keeping the OT around is to provide an excuse for vengeance and desire that Christ leaves little or no recourse to.

[Fragony]

Some people realy deserve it, we do not deserve having to keep them alive, it is not death penalty it is enforced euthanesia. Only when you are really reallly sure

[Gilrandir]

Just a note.
Since we are talking about strictly OT, we cannot be talking about Christians. You do not have Christians until you have the NT.
To square anything in the OT with the teachings of Christ, it would have to meet (at minimum) the test of the Good Samaritan; perhaps that could be done with a few passages.
IMO keeping the OT around is to provide an excuse for vengeance and desire that Christ leaves little or no recourse to.

IMO, since writing of OT and NT is separated by a couple of thousands years, the original language and protagonists those volumes have less right to be considered one book than, say, The Silmarillion, LOTR and The Hobbit.

[Fragony]

IMO, since writing of OT and NT is separated by a couple of thousands years, the original language and protagonists those volumes have less right to be considered one book than, say, The Silmarillion, LOTR and The Hobbit.

Total Realism is a really religious guy and that is ok with me, a moral discussion should be have about death penalty. It is not anything new, the cruelist death=penalty we used to have here was having your arms and legs broken, the 9th smash on the heart was mercy. Does not have to be like it is torture, but I sure like an open discussion on this, I already know how I look at things, and I absolutily think some people should just be put down. Religion should never be a factor, itś as irrevant as the hair on ass, but not everone deserves to be alive

[Crandar]

IMO, since writing of OT and NT is separated by a couple of thousands years, the original language and protagonists those volumes have less right to be considered one book than, say, The Silmarillion, LOTR and The Hobbit.

A couple of thousands of years is a gross exaggeration. At that time, writing wasn't even introduced to the Jewish communities. Even if we take the oldest texts into consideration, it was less than a millennium. In what concerns the newest ones, it was a couple of centuries.

[Gilrandir]

I was referring to today, murder is wrong [and always has been to god and always will be]. In your hypothetical situation it would still have been wrong but Adam simply would not have been guilty for it in front of god.

If Adam (in my hypothetical situation) hadn't been guilty of murder, than murder couldn't have been a sin. Ergo: murder in paradise was legal.

and i have been saying dont look at verses but the bible as a whole and than it becomes a constant source.

A whole consists of parts. If parts do not fit into the whole why are they kept there?

You want to ignore section that would clarify your seemingly wanted contradictions.

seemingly wanted = shrewedly detected.

no, it turns gods word into a sectional divided book for quick easy references [not my doing but i do enjoy it]. you by making those numbers elevated to gods word create false theologies and create contradictions [as do Christians].
I am not here to defend mans numbers but gods word.

Bible wasn't only divided into chapters by men, but also written down by men, edited by men, translated by men. Which makes it a hearsay which in turn presupposes existence of mistakes, exaggerations, slantings in it.

Or both were made in his image

So God looks both like a man and woman at the same time?

A couple of thousands of years is a gross exaggeration. At that time, writing wasn't even introduced to the Jewish communities. Even if we take the oldest texts into consideration, it was less than a millennium. In what concerns the newest ones, it was a couple of centuries.

You are technically right. I was never interested in the exact date of WRITING DOWN the Old Testament and I believe it isn't one date, its constituents might have been written at different dates. I meant not writing it down, but historical tradition and events described in it, which go back several millenia BC. Yet thank you for the correction.

[total relism]

If Adam (in my hypothetical situation) hadn't been guilty of murder, than murder couldn't have been a sin. Ergo: murder in paradise was legal.


A whole consists of parts. If parts do not fit into the whole why are they kept there?



seemingly wanted = shrewedly detected.



Bible wasn't only divided into chapters by men, but also written down by men, edited by men, translated by men. Which makes it a hearsay which in turn presupposes existence of mistakes, exaggerations, slantings in it.



So God looks both like a man and woman at the same time?



You are technically right. I was never interested in the exact date of WRITING DOWN the Old Testament and I believe it isn't one date, its constituents might have been written at different dates. I meant not writing it down, but historical tradition and events described in it, which go back several millenia BC. Yet thank you for the correction.

Not at all. It is a sin towards god weather he is guilty of it or not.



because as part of the whole they make sense, like a puzzle. No two pieces look the same "contradiction" some way cry, but as a whole they fit as they are suppose to with no contradiction.


lol, nice.



unless as the bible says those men were led by the holy spirit.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20–21)

“All Scripture is God-breathed . . . so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17

The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue. (2 Samuel 23:2)
David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,

“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet.
Mark 12.36

“this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke by the mouth of David” (Acts 1:16



Neither. He takes many forms, like sauron has. But i like to think less evil.

[Crandar]

You are technically right. I was never interested in the exact date of WRITING DOWN the Old Testament and I believe it isn't one date, its constituents might have been written at different dates. I meant not writing it down, but historical tradition and events described in it, which go back several millenia BC. Yet thank you for the correction.

No problem, but I think the traditions, mores and etc. described in these alleged events corresponds much more to the date of the writing than that of the events themselves.

Even when writing a historical romance, the author is likely to insert the ideas of his own era, in a somewhat anachronistic manner. That is true even today, not to mention during the Antiquity, where no concrete memory of old events could survive for long based only on oral tradition.
To give you an example, it has been recognized that almost every Iranian had forgotten about the Achaemenids even since the 2nd century BC.

To sum up, the contents of the Old Testament are relatively much closer ideologically, socially and morally to those of the New book (especially in what concerns the most recent chapters, like the Maccabees), than what the original impression given by the "oldness" of the stories cited suggests.

[Gilrandir]

To sum up, the contents of the Old Testament are relatively much closer ideologically, socially and morally to those of the New book (especially in what concerns the most recent chapters, like the Maccabees), than what the original impression given by the "oldness" of the stories cited suggests.

The bold are moot points. Tit for tat =/= the cheeks story.

[total relism]

Just a note.
Since we are talking about strictly OT, we cannot be talking about Christians. You do not have Christians until you have the NT.
To square anything in the OT with the teachings of Christ, it would have to meet (at minimum) the test of the Good Samaritan; perhaps that could be done with a few passages.
IMO keeping the OT around is to provide an excuse for vengeance and desire that Christ leaves little or no recourse to.

I would disagree for many reasons but a separate topic for another thread. But still, this is more on objections towards the OT as it is still viwed as gods word is it not by Christians?

[total relism]

The bold is wrong. He told them to produce offspring.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number;

So he never mentioned eating, and having sex WITHOUT conception. Moreover, he never called it a law or commandment or by any other binding word.

And as for liability to change laws, why, a time might come when adultory or theft will stop being a sin (a violation of god's law), like it is the case with homosexuality now. Or is it still a sin?

last i checked you had to have sex to produce offspring. But yes you are correct, sex and kids and it was not so much a law as go and do. Adultery, stealing etc moral wrongs are based on the nature of god and are always wrong. After the fall with death know in the world and the world changed, man could than start to eat meat is an example of a change in circumstances leading to a change in law.

Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything
Gen 9.3

You contradict yourself. Murder was never forbidden to Adam and Eve (as you have said, there were only two laws at that time, murder wasn't mentioned in either). So techinically, if Adam had murdered Eve - or vice versa - they wouldn't have done anything against God's will.

Later murder WAS wrong. But, as you have noted, God is liable to overlook his treaties.

Think you caught me, i like you. I was referring to today, murder is wrong [and always has been to god and always will be]. In your hypothetical situation it would still have been wrong but Adam simply would not have been guilty for it in front of god.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...Heard-of-Jesus

Adam was only given the command of not eating the tree so that is the only way he could have been guilty before god. Unless of course, gods law was given to adam and has been around since the beginning but just not recorded as some believe such as messianic Christians.

So one and the same book of Bible contains two mutually exclusive quotes. That's what I have been saying on the consistancy of Bible as a source.

and i have been saying dont look at verses but the bible as a whole and than it becomes a constant source. You want to ignore section that would clarify your seemingly wanted contradictions.

Do you realize that this admission turns Bible from the ultimte authority bearing the word of God into a hearsay?

no, it turns gods word into a sectional divided book for quick easy references [not my doing but i do enjoy it]. you by making those numbers elevated to gods word create false theologies and create contradictions [as do Christians].

Since it contains mutually excluding statements (see above) it is useless.

only so long as we elevate a verse number above gods word [the bible] and create a theology from the man made verse number instead of gods word. I am not here to defend mans numbers but gods word.

The existence of denominations has many reasons (like political, economic, etc.) among which theological ones are among many but in no way dominant.

Agreed. Good point. But I think the chapter/numbers contribute. Go attend a church and you will likely see pastors trying to create theology from one verse or chapter.

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

This quote shows that god had at least two anthropomorphic images.



As a male or a female?

Or both were made in his image and being in his image is not material but spiritual.


male, as far as i am aware. of course not always as male or human form. He takes many forms.