Welcome to General Chat - GAW Community Area

(Second part - after the long comment below).

Aha. OK. Yes, I think I get the sense now, reading your original comment. Yes, I agree. God's original plan is God's original plan. And he's not about amend it depending on what any of us do.

BUT, I also believe that God's original plan requires the human element to work with it. It's a joint operation. iow, the fulfillment of God's plan requires that we get with the program, and do our part. It cannot be completed without us. Such is the nature of love.

kekeke. We've all got our perspectives, right?

THE God's plan was about testing humanity to see if they are worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

Lol, I disagree. And, by way of elaborational basis, I would like to suggest that all the ideas, theories, understandings that humans have come up with in the last <biblical cycle> aka 'biblically 6000+ years' historically much, much longer, have been based on limited information. One of my favorite quotes from Paul is this: "Now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully". This passage is glossed over so frequently, and, yes 'established' interpretations abound, but for me, the really key words here are a) in a mirror b) dimly c) then d) face to face e) in part f) know fully.

In other words, even Paul, one of the most revered apostles of Jesus, unabashedly declared he had only a limited understanding of <it all> (which to me certainly includes "THE God's plan") and he looked forward to see that, at some point in the future, that limited understanding would be fully and completely upgraded in to full and complete.

To my mind, what we've been working with over the past 4000 years is limited data. While I fully subscribe to the concept (and belief) that the Bible is God's word to humanity, I do not agree with the theologians who think its 'full and complete'. Much of the New Testament was defined by Paul's understanding, for a start. Paul's understanding has been used as perhaps the primary lens (filter....? hmmm) through which the Gospel, and the Acts, have been interpreted. And yet Paul explained "now I know in part".

All that is to say that, in my perspective, humanity is scheduled for a major upgrade, one that explains and clarifies the first installments of the Word: the Old Testament, or God's word to the Israelites, and the New Testament, God's word to the Christians, and COMPLETES them.

Key to seeing this is the realization (which granted, many will have) that the Bible is not the literal truth, but is a textbook teaching the truth. The truth itself is transcendent. It is not destroyed or damage when a Bible is burned, and whether in fact the Bible was ever written or published or not, the Truth itself exists and is transcendent.

And, with an incomplete 'in part' understanding, one cannot fully understand and grasp an incomplete textbook.

But to address your original premise (on this basis), I will say that overall, while I disagree mostly with your overall framework assessment, I do think you have pointed out some core elements that approximate the truth. But that's all good; let me cut to the chase.

THE God's plan was about testing humanity to see if they are worthy of entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

To me, this framework doesn't work. Run it up against a reality check. Let' say that you are an incredible loving parent. You have children, a son and a daughter. You love them so much; they are the reason for your life. Everything that is meaningful to you is wrapped up in them and their well-being.

Now, you know them very, very well. You're a very clear, observant parent, and you have raised them and lived with them since they were born.

You have been preparing a really beautiful estate, big enough to house them, their spouses, their children (your grandchildren), with self-sustaining capacity, fruit trees in abundance, animals in various flocks, everything they could want to live a meaningful happy life.

Now, as they approach maturity, the point where they could be able to make their own choices, understand how the estate works and live there happily and joyfully, you decide to .... test them. To see if they are worthy. Of that estate and unbelievable beautiful 'kingdom' that you've been preparing for them from before they were born.

You don't know if they are worthy? Are you so absorbed by your own effort that you think, this is so great and grand, and sure, I love my kids, but ... are they really worthy? So, I'll make a test. And, if they fail that test, I will condemn them to millenia of suffering and torture, pain, destruction, anguish, until at some point in the future, they finally pass.

This mentality doesn't make sense for a parent who truly loves his children. The mere thought of them suffering brings pain to his heart. Pain. Not joy. And the idea that the 'test' that he comes up with virtually destroys them, this is not an act of love. No parent in our world who did this would be appreciated or praised.

A more simple scenario is this. A dad has two kids. He loves them, and everything he has done is for them. He loves them. But, one day he decides to check "will they obey may? I simply need to know if they will obey my word!" So he devises a test by putting, in the middle of the living room, something that is so extremely delicious, a most wonderful chocolate creation, but... he has laced it with cyanide, so that if they fail the test, they will die.

He goes out. Before he leaves, he tells them "hey, do not eat that chocolate. Don't eat it... (unspoken, so they cannot hear: I'm testing you....). If you eat it, something bad will happen! You'll die!" and then he leaves the house and goes somewhere to wait. The kids end up eating the chocolate, and they die. This is a psychopathic parent. This father would be rightfully arrested, imprisoned, aid in some societies, get the death penalty.

This scenario is inconsistent with the idea of a truly loving parent.

Or here's another. The Dad puts enough cyanide into the chocolate so that if the kids eat it, they won't fully die, but be wracked and tortured and disfigured in agony so that then, bam! he can come along and say "Well, you failed the test. But now I am going to save you. I'll save you, because only now will you understand or appreciate how much I love you."

This is essentially a scenario from a Hollywood script like "Misery", where the predator tortures the victim so that the victim comes to love and value to predator.

This doesn't make sense in the real context of even a parent in our world today, fallen though this world is.

And, is this really how kids work? Children know when they are being loved. They embrace it. They respond to it. And, when the love is real, it grows between them and their parents, and the relationship blossoms into an amazing thing. The parents don't need a test, and the kids would so not benefit from a test.

For the above reasons, the idea that God's plan was to test humanity (at the cost of immense suffering, torture and agony) to see if they were 'worthy' of the Kingdom of Heaven, this does not align with the even limited concept of what a loving parent is.

So, if that is the case, (which I fully believe it is), there must be something else going on here. Something we've failed to grasp, something that does not contradict the idea that God is a Father of supreme, unconditional love.

There are hints in the story of the fall, but the puzzle needs to be worked out. In my view, we (humanity) need a framework that can account for the information, but provide a perspective that doesn't have this sort of contradiction.

A lot of it hinges on our experience and concept of who in fact God is. That's one of the key aspects that we've only known 'in part'. If God is truly a God of love, then who could he permit suffering to exist? A test? A lesson to teach how great he is?

When I became a teenager and began thinking about things, I decided to become an atheist because I found the concept that God allowed all the suffering I saw around me - in my family, my parents, my relatives, the people at school, everyone in my society - for whatever reason, well, I wanted no part of such a God. Not at all.

But as I matured, I came to realize that I was not grasping the whole picture. That not only was God not 'allowing' or creating the suffering, but rather, that God was actively working against it, to resolve it and liquidate it. More importantly, that it was never part of God's plan in the first place. That what happened (the situation described in the scripture around the fall of Adam and Eve) was in fact an unspeakable tragedy that caused God unbelievable suffering and agony, as he watched his children be destroyed.

The key to grasping this is to understand the real nature of love.

Love is not something that can exist without freedom, and freedom cannot exist without responsibility (in fact, true freedom cannot exist without responsibility being fulfilled.)

Love is also something that is experienced greatest when the parties involved are fully equal, and when they share the greatest extent of mutual shared nature. The more the shared nature, the greater the potential relationship.

(Example: I can love a rock, and I can love a rabbit, but that while I can love most is another human being fully like myself, who understand and responds to everything that I experience in my life.)

Love is something that one cannot experience alone. It requires an object, a partner. Love is not fully experienced unless it is given and then received, and returned in some form. In fact, love given but not received is perhaps the most torturous of human experiences on an inner level. Unrequited love, or abandonment by one's most beloved, these bring the ultimate experience of pain, suffering and heartache.

In short, love requires someone to receive it and then respond to form a reciprocal bond. And that is why God created. To create someone who would be capable of receiving and responding to his love.

But because God himself is a creator, that 'someone' had to also be a creator in some sense. And because God himself is free, that 'someone' had to have freedom. And because freedom requires responsibility, then that someone had to also have some responsibility. And because true freedom (perfect freedom) is only achieved when responsibility is fulfilled, God created the universe and his children in such a manner that they had a responsibility to fulfill.

Failure was not necessary. In fact, failure to fulfill the required responsibility would bring suffering, the opposite of the objective. Even death. But, UNLESS the responsibility was given in the first place, then the 'someone' would not be able to experience true freedom. And, the person given the responsibility had to be capable of fulfilling it.

God's plan, in my understanding, was to create an ideal universe in which the total embodiment of his own creative nature would be manifest, as his children. Those children were created with the potential to grow and mature in heart, which is the capacity to give and receive love. But to reach fully maturity, they had a portion of responsibility.

That responsibility was to make the right choices that would ultimately help them to create who they become. In executing that responsibility, then the children would actually have had a role in creating themselves. They would become co-creators with God, their father.

He did almost all the work: creating a universe, giving them a body that was the embodiment - a microcosm - of that universe, a body that encapsulated all the key building blocks of that universe, and giving them a spirit that likewise had the potential to grow, mature and become fully versed in the spiritual dimension, so that a perfect communication and resonance could exist between father and child.

Indeed, so that the children could then have actual true dominion over the cosmos, both the material plane and the spiritual plane, as the Father's representatives.

All that was then required was that, as they grew to maturity, those children made the right choices, followed the blueprint that was laid out. And, by making those choices, they would be exercising their own responsibility to mature and perfect themselves.

And, the guidance point was The Word. The command. Do not eat the fruit.