If God is all-powerful, why doesn't he kill Satan?

[Sojo]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

The only way that could work is if either The Father is not God, or the OT God is not God but Jesus was mistaken/lying.

I understand why you might think that, but Christ knew he could not just declare to the Jewish authorities and people that they had been deceived and were not really aware of what the True Father/God was all about.

That's why he used so many parables. He knew that some would be able to hear the parables and be moved to think on them. Some might begin to understand some of what he was trying to say, while others who thought they already knew it all would completely miss the hidden meanings.

Heck, he even had to explain some of them to his closest disciples. And even then, he couldn't tell them the whole truth when he said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth (John 16:12-13).

That's why he explained you don't want to put new wine into old bottles, but you need to put new wine into new wine skins so the fermentation process won't burst and ruin the old bottles and the wine is spilled and lost.

New bottles get the new wine and then the fermentation process will help develop the final product in time.

I hope the point I'm trying to make is getting across. These people Christ came to had been brought up their whole lives steeped in a religious dogma and ruling authority that controlled their entire way of thinking.

Christ knew things would take time and couldn't just be rushed without causing harm in one form or another. I think he expressed that being too explicit with truth to some people is like casting pearls before swine.

He knew it wouldn't be accepted outright, and this is how the Gospel of Truth gradually gets planted, watered, and tended until fruit is produced.

Peace,

Sojo

[jmccr8]

God can’t kill Satan just like the CIA can’t destroy international crime families because they/ he needs them to do the dirty work so they can claim plausible deniability.

God would have to set up another fall guy to take the heat.

[Rlyeh]

13 hours ago, Sojo said:

I understand why you might think that, but Christ knew he could not just declare to the Jewish authorities and people that they had been deceived and were not really aware of what the True Father/God was all about.

So he lied.

Edit: Why would Jesus turn over the tables at the temple if it wasn't The Father's temple?

Edited March 8, 2023 by Rlyeh

[Sojo]

2 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

So he lied.

Edit: Why would Jesus turn over the tables at the temple if it wasn't The Father's temple?

I perceive that you think that if someone knows something and then keeps it from others who believe otherwise without telling them outright (even though they might think it would do harm to the individuals psyche or cause a possibly violent response), then you deem that individual a liar. I fear that even though many people may have committed this tactful way of avoiding violent confrontation unnecessarily , I don't understand why you think it means they should be branded an outright intentional liar when they simply are withholding information that would be like casting pearls before swine. The recipients wouldn't understand and only still attack you for it.

Jesus again quoted the Old Testament and pointed out that the temple had been designated as a "House of Prayer". But because of all the money changers and vendors accommodating the sacrificing of animals (which Christ wanted an end to) taking advantage of the people, he pointed out the temple had been turned into a "Den of Thieves".

His righteous indignation was against those who would take such advantage of others for profit, and this was an action to point that fact out among all who were present.

Plus he understood that these people have all their lives believed they were worshiping the only true God. He knew that his Father could be worshiped and reverenced anywhere, anytime, by anyone. He needed to make it clear the temple was not needed. He even declared the temple would be completely destroyed (Matthew 24:1-2).

Peace,

Sojo

 

[+Liquid Gardens]

15 minutes ago, Sojo said:

Jesus again quoted the Old Testament and pointed out that the temple had been designated as a "House of Prayer".

So Jesus is quoting the OT but one is not to assume that the OT God is the same 'Father' he refers to in the NT?  That doesn't seem consistent or likely, why is he quoting from something that is not from his god?

18 minutes ago, Sojo said:

Jesus again quoted the Old Testament and pointed out that the temple had been designated as a "House of Prayer". But because of all the money changers and vendors accommodating the sacrificing of animals (which Christ wanted an end to) taking advantage of the people, he pointed out the temple had been turned into a "Den of Thieves".

His righteous indignation was against those who would take such advantage of others for profit, and this was an action to point that fact out among all who were present.

His indignation (I wouldn't call it 'righteous') is not just because people are being taken advantage of, it's where they are being taken advantage of also:

Quote

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

"make not my Father's house an house of merchandise"

22 minutes ago, Sojo said:

Plus he understood that these people have all their lives believed they were worshiping the only true God. He knew that his Father could be worshiped and reverenced anywhere, anytime, by anyone. He needed to make it clear the temple was not needed.

Which makes the episode that much more absurd.  If the temple was not needed there's no reason to get so indignant about commerce and people taken advantage of there.  If the temple was not needed then there's little reason for him to go to these lengths to try and preserve his 'Father's house' as a house of prayer.  Let alone the idea of someone who says this is 'not his kingdom' nevertheless trying to control this specific piece of real estate.

[Rlyeh]

1 hour ago, Sojo said:

I perceive that you think that if someone knows something and then keeps it from others who believe otherwise without telling them outright (even though they might think it would do harm to the individuals psyche or cause a possibly violent response), then you deem that individual a liar.

If someone made a statement they know is false, are they a liar?

 

1 hour ago, Sojo said:

I fear that even though many people may have committed this tactful way of avoiding violent confrontation unnecessarily , I don't understand why you think it means they should be branded an outright intentional liar when they simply are withholding information that would be like casting pearls before swine. The recipients wouldn't understand and only still attack you for it.

He said God is the God of Abraham, if God is not the God of Abraham he is presenting false information.

 

1 hour ago, Sojo said:

Jesus again quoted the Old Testament and pointed out that the temple had been designated as a "House of Prayer". But because of all the money changers and vendors accommodating the sacrificing of animals (which Christ wanted an end to) taking advantage of the people, he pointed out the temple had been turned into a "Den of Thieves".

If Jesus does not follow the Old Testament God, what business is it of his what Yahweh's followers do?  Did he walk into any Roman temples, preaching about their Gods?

 

1 hour ago, Sojo said:

His righteous indignation was against those who would take such advantage of others for profit, and this was an action to point that fact out among all who were present.

Like slavery?  He didn't do much to fight that.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Rlyeh

[Sojo]

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

So Jesus is quoting the OT but one is not to assume that the OT God is the same 'Father' he refers to in the NT?  That doesn't seem consistent or likely, why is he quoting from something that is not from his god?

I think I answered this one, he is using the Old Testament scriptures against those who claim they are divine and to be worshiped as such. He shows them the inconsistencies with their practice of worship compared to what should be going on internally.

 

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Which makes the episode that much more absurd.  If the temple was not needed there's no reason to get so indignant about commerce and people taken advantage of there.  If the temple was not needed then there's little reason for him to go to these lengths to try and preserve his 'Father's house' as a house of prayer.  Let alone the idea of someone who says this is 'not his kingdom' nevertheless trying to control this specific piece of real estate.

I will agree that my statement about the temple not being needed could be misconstrued since I wasn't specific. I think the point is the temple is not needed to conduct animal sacrifice.

I don't mean to imply that there couldn't be places designated for believers to gather and pray if they so desire, and to have a place for gathering and edifying one another. But Christ made it clear the temple would be destroyed, he was trying to point out that if it was used for anything, it should be as a House of Prayer. Any House of Prayer should be to the one true God and I think Christ indicated that if there were Houses of Prayer, they should be to his Father.

Also, everywhere is the Father's "piece of real estate". The Father's Kingdom is more that just this tiny planet.

Peace,

Sojo

[029b10]

On 3/4/2023 at 5:49 PM, pellinore said:

This is something that has always troubled me. I think this is the answer. And the answer is, don't ask the question. Right.

Since the term 'eternal' infers a life form or being that has no beginning of existence, having always existed, thus any living thing which has a beginning of existence is not eternal, but rather is a mortal life form.  The fact that any living thing which has a beginning of life is mortal is evident in nature itself, as well as in scripture wherein it is written that there is a time to be born and a time to die.   So why would an eternal being need to kill a life form whose existence will naturally end due to it is own mortal nature?  

[Sojo]

8 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

If someone made a statement they know is false, are they a liar?

 

He said God is the God of Abraham, if God is not the God of Abraham he is presenting false information.

 

If Jesus does not follow the Old Testament God, what business is it of his what Yahweh's followers do?  Did he walk into any Roman temples, preaching about their Gods?

 

Like slavery?  He didn't do much to fight that.

- Truth is also a matter of perspective and understanding. I can make a statement that is False on the surface but is actually true. (Such as If I said I was 50 when I'm actually about to turn 69). Saying I'm 50 is not a lie because I am 50 years old. I may be more than that but at least I'm that may years old and not lying according to the strict rules of logic. It's not a lie to address someone by the term or designation that another person has used all their lives to refer to the same being (even though they may know things to be otherwise).

- Christ's Father is the God of everyone, so, not a lie. (I think some confusion comes when choosing which "God" is being referred to in one's mind.

- Jesus declared that he was initially here specific to the House of Israel (initially). The Nation of Israel had been specifically targeted and chosen by a being for it's own design and purposes. This had continued for a long time. Christ was on a mission to help set things aright. His life on earth was the beginning of it.

- With respect to slavery (or any other social injustice you may be able to think of), Christ was not here to use one lifetime to eliminate all social injustices.

Please keep in mind, I am trying to make it through this world just like everyone else. I recognize that fact for you and every other poster on the site. I'm not trying to tell anyone they need to believe as I do. I am just trying to explain and synthesize everything I've learned to find my best path forward. Discussing things in the forms helps me with this so, Thanks.

Peace,

Sojo

 

[Rlyeh]

19 minutes ago, Sojo said:

- Truth is also a matter of perspective and understanding. I can make a statement that is False on the surface but is actually true. (Such as If I said I was 50 when I'm actually about to turn 69). Saying I'm 50 is not a lie because I am 50 years old. I may be more than that but at least I'm that may years old and not lying according to the strict rules of logic. It's not a lie to address someone by the term or designation that another person has used all their lives to refer to the same being (even though they may know things to be otherwise).

But you didn't say you're at least 50, you said you're 50.  Which is a lie.  Just as if you told someone you are a high school student because you were once.

 

19 minutes ago, Sojo said:

- Christ's Father is the God of everyone, so, not a lie. (I think some confusion comes when choosing which "God" is being referred to in one's mind.

Jesus never called the OT God, your god, he called him God.  You're saying when Jesus speaks of "God" he might be speaking of the OT God or The Father.

This is called doublespeak.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Rlyeh

[Sojo]

1 hour ago, Rlyeh said:

But you didn't say you're at least 50, you said you're 50.  Which is a lie.  Just as if you told someone you are a high school student because you were once.

 

Jesus never called the OT God, your god, he called him God.  You're saying when Jesus speaks of "God" he might be speaking of the OT God or The Father.

This is called doublespeak.

If I say I am 50 years old. That is not a lie because I have seen 50 years of aging. If I say I'm only 50 years old that is a lie. When someone makes assumptions, that is not entirely on the person making the statement. Semantics is the cause of so much misunderstanding. And yes, I know The truth can be manipulated to be combined with lies. Which does happen. I can't tell someone I'm a high school student because I'm not. But I can tell someone I am a student because I'm always learning. Specifics of meaning and semantics causes differences of perception.

Doublespeak or not, Christ to me always seemed to make sure who he knows as his Father when he referred to him. He also told the religious leaders of the time (John 8: 42-44):

⁴² Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

⁴³ Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

⁴⁴ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Quite the accusation and I'm sure one which would inspire said religious leaders to do away with him.

And just for consideration: I may not worship the bible because I do not believe it is a book of verbatim words from God, but I will use the book that so many believe in and do worship, because I do think it contains the Gospel that everyone needs to hear.

Peace,

Sojo

 

[Rlyeh]

20 minutes ago, Sojo said:

If I say I am 50 years old. That is not a lie because I have seen 50 years of aging.

Those are two different statements.  "Years old" means age, there is no definition in which is a 69 year old is a 50 year old.

 

20 minutes ago, Sojo said:

I can't tell someone I'm a high school student because I'm not.

You're not 50 years old either.  

[cormac mac airt]

38 minutes ago, Sojo said:

If I say I am 50 years old. That is not a lie because I have seen 50 years of aging. If I say I'm only 50 years old that is a lie.

Nope, doesn’t work that way. By saying “I am 50 years old” you are claiming that NOW, AT THIS MOMENT you are 50 years old. “If” you added qualifiers such as “I am AT LEAST 50 years old” then you’d be correct. Your above quote however is factually incorrect. 
 

cormac

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, Sojo said:

Also, everywhere is the Father's "piece of real estate". The Father's Kingdom is more that just this tiny planet.

The Father or Jesus?  You have been separating these beings so that's why I ask.  Jesus said, " “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm.”"  Regardless of how one interprets the specifics of that, it at the very least pretty clearly says that 'now' this is not his kingdom.  Yet he's chosen to violently defend this one building/piece of real estate.  

To me the most apparent problem with the episode is his violent response, his followers should not be doing anything like this even though it would be 'Christ-like' by definition, and thankfully few do.  The problem is compounded by where he does this and why, in addition to the absurdity of his claim to this one building amidst a world where sin surrounds him he seems to mainly be doing it because of what the place is.  He doesn't really emphasize that much directly that the reason he's doing this is to protect people who are being screwed by the moneychangers, it's to prevent his father's house from becoming a den of thieves, it's like he's trying to protect a brand or a reputation or something.  This is not one of Jesus' most holy responses.

[Sojo]

The Father, but Jesus was one with the Father.

For everything after "To me..." in the next paragraph, OK, I understand that's the way you see it.

 

[cormac mac airt]

52 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The Father or Jesus?  You have been separating these beings so that's why I ask.  Jesus said, " “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm.”"  Regardless of how one interprets the specifics of that, it at the very least pretty clearly says that 'now' this is not his kingdom.  Yet he's chosen to violently defend this one building/piece of real estate.  

To me the most apparent problem with the episode is his violent response, his followers should not be doing anything like this even though it would be 'Christ-like' by definition, and thankfully few do.  The problem is compounded by where he does this and why, in addition to the absurdity of his claim to this one building amidst a world where sin surrounds him he seems to mainly be doing it because of what the place is.  He doesn't really emphasize that much directly that the reason he's doing this is to protect people who are being screwed by the moneychangers, it's to prevent his father's house from becoming a den of thieves, it's like he's trying to protect a brand or a reputation or something.  This is not one of Jesus' most holy responses.

To me he’s not trying to defend the building, as such, but is trying to defend the institution of Judaism as it was meant to be, or at least as he believed it should be. The same problem arises with that as with other things attributed to him as it is questionable as to what he may have actually believed, thought, said, etc. since everything said and written about him was done so decades after his death. Realistically it’s near impossible to separate fact from fiction on the matter. 
 

cormac

Edited March 8, 2023 by cormac mac airt
Spelling

[Sojo]

49 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The Father or Jesus

The Father, but Jesus was one with the Father.

For everything after "To me..." in the next paragraph, OK, I understand that's the way you see it.

Quote

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Sojo
Was supposed to be edit of previous post to add previous poster's question.

[Alchopwn]

On 3/6/2023 at 2:50 PM, cormac mac airt said:

Actually it’s worse if the Bible is to be believed as mankind was never supposed to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, having done so therefore is what gave mankind free will NOT God. God even allegedly laments the repercussions of humanity having done so. There is no benevolence in that anywhere. 

Not so.  If god is omniscient enough to provide prophets with visions of the future, then he knew what would happen. And as god is omnipotent he could have acted to prevent the eating of the fruit but he thus deliberately allowed it to occur, even if he was rolling back time to do so. That is not the even the beginning of the sort of powers entailed by omnipotence. God chose not to act to protect his children from the serpent and their poor choices, despite perfect foreknowledge.  That is deliberate evil.

It is the equivalent of a parent sending their mentally disabled children (no knowledge of good and evil is pretty mentally disabled) to be babysat by a drug dealer and then disowning them when the drug dealer gets them to try illegal narcotics.  Does this sound like responsible parenting to you?

Edited March 9, 2023 by Alchopwn

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Not so.  If god is omniscient enough to provide prophets with visions of the future, then he knew what would happen. And as god is omnipotent he could have acted to prevent the eating of the fruit but he thus deliberately allowed it to occur, even if he was rolling back time to do so. That is not the even the beginning of the sort of powers entailed by omnipotence. God chose not to act to protect his children from the serpent and their poor choices, despite perfect foreknowledge.  That is deliberate evil.

It is the equivalent of a parent sending their mentally disabled children (no knowledge of good and evil is pretty mentally disabled) to be babysat by a drug dealer and then disowning them when the drug dealer gets them to try illegal narcotics.  Does this sound like responsible parenting to you?

There is nothing responsible in the Biblical God’s parenting whatsoever. 
 

cormac

[HSlim]

On 3/6/2023 at 4:27 AM, Crazy Horse said:

The really sad thing is, that you are too scared, or weak, or jealous, or pathetic to even give GOD a go, for if you did, you wouldn't be writing such non-sense.

Wait, you think the fact that we don't need a sky daddy to guide us through the day makes us "weak, scared, jealous, and pathetic?"  That's a ****ing riot.  Seems like we're the ones strong enough to control ourselves without the threat of an eternal spanking. 

[HSlim]

On 3/6/2023 at 4:56 AM, Crazy Horse said:

That's not up to me to say.

But worry not, everybody gets what they deserve.

The victims of the child molesting clergy would beg to differ. 

[HSlim]

16 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

There is nothing responsible in the Biblical God’s parenting whatsoever. 
 

cormac

Not at all.  God is the definitive abusive parent and Christianity is basically Stockholm Syndrome. 

[HSlim]

On 3/4/2023 at 7:42 PM, Hankenhunter said:

There is no Satan. It's just a construct created to control the masses. 

Same applies to god

[+Sherapy]

On 3/8/2023 at 7:30 AM, Rlyeh said:

But you didn't say you're at least 50, you said you're 50.  Which is a lie.  Just as if you told someone you are a high school student because you were once.

 

Jesus never called the OT God, your god, he called him God.  You're saying when Jesus speaks of "God" he might be speaking of the OT God or The Father.

This is called doublespeak.

 

On 3/8/2023 at 9:18 AM, Sojo said:

If I say I am 50 years old. That is not a lie because I have seen 50 years of aging. If I say I'm only 50 years old that is a lie. When someone makes assumptions, that is not entirely on the person making the statement. Semantics is the cause of so much misunderstanding. And yes, I know The truth can be manipulated to be combined with lies. Which does happen. I can't tell someone I'm a high school student because I'm not. But I can tell someone I am a student because I'm always learning. Specifics of meaning and semantics causes differences of perception.

Doublespeak or not, Christ to me always seemed to make sure who he knows as his Father when he referred to him. He also told the religious leaders of the time (John 8: 42-44):

⁴² Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

⁴³ Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.

⁴⁴ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Quite the accusation and I'm sure one which would inspire said religious leaders to do away with him.

And just for consideration: I may not worship the bible because I do not believe it is a book of verbatim words from God, but I will use the book that so many believe in and do worship, because I do think it contains the Gospel that everyone needs to hear.

Peace,

Sojo

 

It’s manipulating semantics to create a straw man, or in common language it’s called bs. 
 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

On 3/8/2023 at 2:09 PM, Sojo said:

The Father, but Jesus was one with the Father.

For everything after "To me..." in the next paragraph, OK, I understand that's the way you see it.

 

"Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" "God, God, why have you forsaken me?" gives the lie to that. If Jesus was one and the same as the Father, how could he forsake himself?