I am not sure what you mean by my version, I have not said anything that is not the popular view, except for a couple of statements where I provided the caveat that not everyone would agree.

Metaphors serve to explain things which are otherwise difficult to speak about and understand. Not everything is literal, and not everything is a figurative.

When Christ explained to the disciples that he spoke in parables to everyone else, but to them he speaks plainly, he still spoke to them in parables, he only explains what they mean, and what the spiritual implications are.

When Jesus is talking about the non physical, which he is most of the time in the Bible, it is ALWAYS metaphor. That's my point. It can't not be because then you are making it physical.

When you think about dying and going to a place where there is a human looking god and human looking Christ there, you are making spiritual phenomena physical events.

What's happening here is that we have a concept of "sin" which is dependent upon the concept of "God." The traditional definitions of sin boil down to something like "sin is doing something that is against God." Under this concept of "sin" it doesn't really make sense to ask whether God can sin against himself, because it's not really a reasonably structured situation to have God going against himself. So when it comes to the question of whether God can sin, once it's understood what sin is, the answer is "No, by definition."

The way around this is to not talk about "sin" but talk about "good" or "moral" or some other term that can be understood in a way that is independent of God. You can ask, "Is God good?" where "good" means "behaves in such-and-such a manner" and that would be a meaningful question. And this is where your argumentation leads to. But it's important to recognize that the question is now substantively different from "Can God sin?"

This is a broad misunderstanding of the situation which seems to be caused by a bit of conflation of ideas.

I still do not understand your objection. We agree that the metaphors serve as a way to understand the spiritual, and Jesus used them extensively. I am using the same metaphors used in the bible to communicate the character of God, so I do not quite get your point.

When trying to communicate with people and speak about heaven and salvation, this is the easiest way to do it, and it is biblical and easy to understand. It is not meant to be difficult. Perhaps if you would point to a specific area you disagree with, I could better defend my point of view, or perhaps agree with yours instead.

Ya, and in particular most people do have some independent notion of morality based on their emotional reactions, social pressures, etc. We find murders and genocides to be bad in general, helping starving children good in general, and so on. So for remarks such as mightyboosh alluded to like god being a "moral monster" what is really being meant by a phrase like that is that according to this independent morality that finds genocides to be bad, god's actions have violated that morality. But this is a very separate thing from the standard of sin or goodness that is built into the very concept of God.

Relating this to my comment towards RLK's response to OrP, the "standard" way potential conflicts are resolved is to defer to the "God standard", if you will. As in, if an action (such as a genocide committed by god) appears to be bad by our common mortal standards, we have accepted by assumption that it isn't sinful by God's standards and the tension only manifests based on our limited levels of knowledge applying imperfect information to imperfect moralities.

I did do that in the post you quoted

Referring to this

But here is another

Here is another

Do you see what I'm saying? When you say "people will literally stand" you are not talking about spiritual matters. Spirit does not stand. You can't visualize any of this stuff because then you are making it something in the human domain.

When you give God human characteristics, when you think of heaven as a destination, you are losing meaning.

When I say it is metaphorical, I'm talking about all of it. You can interpret it literally and make some sense out of it that way but like I said that is just a starting point. To get truth, you must move beyond the literal. I disagree that it's supposed to be easy. It's human nature to want it to be easy.

You are taking the first two instances slightly out of context. In the first example, I was responding to OrP, who had asked if I believe in the literal interpretation. That is, Satan exists and is not simply an idea, or representation of evil, but there is an entity who defied God. To say that I do not literally believe it would have been misleading to his question.

As for the courtroom, I was only saying that the bible describes the judgement day in terms of a courtroom. I am not implying that it is a literal courtroom, or that it is even physical, but that is the way it is described. It literally describes it as a courtroom, not that it is a literal courtroom.

It feels like you are ignoring my overall points. I understand we may not stand literally before God in the physical realm, but in the context of that conversation I was trying to emphasize that God could in fact be present with sin, since we will be in his presence in some form or another during judgement. That may only entails a spiritual aspect, and I am not disputing that. I probably should not have said literally stand before God, but my intention was not to imply a physical component and undermine the spiritual, I think it is odd you would draw that conclusion given the way that conversation evolved, when the point I was trying to make was that there is a difference between being with God, and being one with God.

You are right though, I was wrong in saying literally stand with God, that may not be accurate, although I think my point was understood.

As for the bible being easy to understand, I believe salvation and forgiveness are very simple concepts. There are deeper areas that are complicated, disputed, and misunderstood. That is obvious since the bible says that it is God that gives understanding and wisdom about the word, and he is the one that reveals the secret things to those that seek them.

You're confused because you misunderstood what I'm objecting to. That there is a judgment or that Satan is an actual entity, this is what I'm saying is metaphorical. It's hard for you to consider certain aspects of Christianity not being literal because it's so engrained in you. This is where the confusion arises from I think.

If you want to interpret the bible as completely figurative, that is up to you, I personally disagree.

I believe in a real Christ who really died, because there is a need for salvation. If there is no judgement, there is no need for salvation, so there is no need for Christ to die, and for us to repent.

I'm really not that familiar with it overall, I've read bits and pieces from various books. Sure, the topic is overall consistent (else it wouldn't appear in the canon) but I don't see anything remarkable about it (beyond the popularity of the theme, which is remarkable, for various reasons).

It's just a bad analogy that makes no sense anyway, imo. To start with, everyone is guilty! There is no defense, given that presumption. All that matters is whether you are forgiven or not, and you are sentenced according to that - despite it being that everyone is guilty! Next, Christ has already paid your 'fine'. So why should you be punished further, why does it matter what you happen to believe, something that you have no real choice in one way or another? Justice demands a fine, Christ paid that fine, and yet that isn't sufficient. Again: Christ's sacrifice is insufficient for your forgiveness, and forgiveness has nothing to do with justice. This is putting aside the problem of substitutionary atonement, something we do not see in most of our corporeal legal processes because it is not seen as justice.

But:

I know you are just telling me what you believe from the Bible. You probably see as much sense in it as I see nonsense. This is one of the more interesting things, to me, about religion (politics is another example), how people can come to believe such vastly different things. I do appreciate your tone, some people are incapable of discussing things that are so important to them without getting upset / angry etc.

If you begin to study it in depth, there is a lot of symbolism in the OT that you can see in the NT. Even if you do not take it as historically accurate, or as a book from God, it is still very well put together.

If you do not like the analogy, that is fine, it is subjective after all. The only thing I would change is that not everyone is guilty, but that you are not guilty after you have accepted Christ. Which is why God does not remember your sins, so you are only left with Satan accusing you falsely.

Also, your overall picture of God may not be accurate, in that he may not be a stoic judge-like figure calmly handing out penalties, since it was not his will that people perish to begin with.

I believe if you follow this thought, it leads to God being unable to change his character, and to forgive people who did not accept Christ. The picture the bible paints of God is that he is grieved, but equally demanding of justice, not simply angry.

I agree with you about believing different things, it is quite interesting, especially politically. I think religion is less impressive, because of the faith component, where you eventually believe the theology as a whole, and make sense of it after.

I appreciate your tone as well, so far the majority of people on here have been very cordial even if they disagree and secretly think I am out to lunch. Religion is a sensitive issue, but I am completely fine if you disagree with the entire thing, it is better for a conversation if you are honest about it, than try to avoid hurting my feelings. It is not my creation, after all, I can handle it. Plus, even though I believe in Christ and in the bible, I cannot say I am 100% sure, there is room for doubt in every belief.

"I'm sure that at this moment, there's a family in India that can use an extra $100 in their lives. I have $100 in a checking account. I can write a check and send it off, and do good to that family. But if I don't do that, is that sinful according to the quoted verse? It's far from clear that this is a good that I ought to do. It's definitely a good that can be done, but a good that I ought to do?"

If you expect to be worshipped as God, yes, it's a good that you ought to do.

Things are happening against God's will?

Yes, the question is to what extent, and if it goes beyond free will or not.

How does something go beyond free will?

I realize this is precarious ground I'm on, and I would never teach this from a pulpit, even though I have heard similar thoughts in formal settings, I consider this more of a hypothesis, than doctrinal truth.

My question is that since God does not wish for people to perish, but they do because of free will, does that "inability" of God extend any further than free will, or is it the cause of free will to begin with? For instance, Since God is love and cannot sin, does that imply that he "had to" create life, because love entails that one share, and give, and well, love? That is, it may not have been loving of God to NOT create life, even though he knew the pain that would result, i.e. sin, Christ dying, people being punished.

This idea can be seen when God was grieved with creation before the flood, and decides to wipe-out humanity, with the exception of a few righteous people. Some have argued that these actions come out of God being unable to sin, and having to be holy and righteous, despite the unfortunate results. It could be that God acts perfectly, and continues acting perfectly even if the original action will bring him pain, so create life and share with them even if you know you will be forced to punish them when they become filled with sin.

People are quick to say that God created us for us to worship him, and while that is true, it is not the only reason that scripture gives. Love is also at the forefront of God's reasoning, since a perfect God would not require anything from anyone. That is, God doesn't need us to worship him, but instead it is part of him giving and sharing his perfectness with us.

Perhaps my original comment/question was a bit confusing, I'm only suggesting that perhaps there are other things that God does not will to occur, which make him grieve for instance, but he endures for the sake of love.

Sorry for the long answer, it's difficult to explain this concisely. This is just food for thought, too, not to be taken too seriously.

I've definitely thought about this before: that we exist because God is love. Our existence can only come out of love. If God is love, then we must exist.

I'm not proposing it as a formal argument, or anything like that, but I think it is an interesting thought, is all.

I mean, I think that is what you are saying, right?

You should be wary of any theology that posits that God must necessarily have created humans. In particular, such a theology (if not parsed extremely carefully) creates a situation in which God is somehow incomplete without humans, which diminishes God's quality as being completely distinct from and wholly independent of humanity.

Do all of you guys (the Christians) believe that God has a human body or is a type of human being? When the Bible talks about being created in his image, do you interpret that as referring to the human being part of us and not just the 'soul' part of us?

I'm asking because you guys say things like "God is love" and I'm with you but then there is also talk about God grieving, wanting to be worshipped, punishing people. It gets confusing to hold your perspective.

Yeah, you get what I'm saying. God had to create us, life, because he is so good and loving, and his character requires him to share it and give selflessly. Basically, when you apply the "love chapter" to God, what results is life.

I agree that you're on dangerous ground when you start saying what God has to do, but there is also some truth in that God has to do good, and cannot sin.

I wouldn't grab all this and run with it as an absolute doctrinal truth about God, but it does make sense on some level. Like I said, I probably wouldn't preach this at church, but it's is an interesting idea.

It would probably help if you first explain your theology. You've alluded to the fact that you believe everything to be figurative, I don't think you will get many Christians to agree with you about this.

Can someone explain this "God is love" phrase? It doesn't means anything to me. Love is an emotion that describes the relationship between people (simplified). You don't mean that the word God and the word love are interchangeable, right? Perhaps you mean that "God loves"? If so, why not say that? And God also hates - or do you disagree?

It's safe to say you are not a Calvinist then?

The bolded is confusing me. There's a difference between someone committing an act of badness, because they have the free will to do so, and say a young child dying of cancer, something that has nothing to do with free will since no free will was exercised. (Unless you think God deliberately gave the child cancer but I prefer to imagine that God simply didn't prevent the child contracting cancer, but could have if he had chosen to.)

Which are you discussing?