Explain the justice of hell.

[dedo]

I would say there’s a difference between hanging out with a dealer, and locking your kid in a room with a drug dealer, and drugs, against their will. We would keep our children away from a drug dealer, but to what extent should we go to limit their activities, I mean the legal ones not the drug dealing, in socieity? If you catch my drift.
God does not prevent Satan from tempting us anymore than He prevents the drug dealer from tempting us. I would say it comes back to the point I was making about living in a world were God made sure nothing bad ever happened. I don’t know I’ve explained what I’m getting at very well.

I think God allows Satan to tempt us so we turn to God for help. We need God to grow in areas beyond just resisting temptation.

So if we are falling into temptation, then we have a good signal to come closer to God.

 

[minkymurph]

I think God allows Satan to tempt us so we turn to God for help. We need God to grow in areas beyond just resisting temptation.

So if we are falling into temptation, then we have a good signal to come closer to God.

Certainly God helps us overcome temptation. I think its part of the becoming like God. When we overcome temptation, we do become more like God. I don’t mean we become God but more able to love in the way he loves, which is the nature he gave us in making us in his image. I mean, if you never had to overcome temptation, would you ever be able to love on a divine level?

I’m kind of thinking out loud now.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

For practical purposes, yes. For analytic purposes, no.

I see.

By not opening it, and then becoming accustom the knocking, as if it were nothing.

Are we not referring to GOD ALMIGHTY? Does he knock like a kitten, or something?

I said “Christ” in specific so as to emphasize the point that Christ was incarnate, and suffered. While God is three persons, he is one essence–one substance. They relate to each other in an incredibly intimate fashion.

Is it so intimate that one branch will feel the other’s pain? If so, might one not easily amend my question to allow for this probability?

If Jesus is suffering regarding the souls in Hell, is he miserable in Heaven? Is God equally miserable?

I don’t remember saying that we wouldn’t ever understand more of it. If I have, please pardon my error. While we will never understand all of it, we will continually understand and appreciate this inexhaustible source of awe and wonder more and more in the beatific vision.

How might one grow in such understanding if one’s capacity to learn has been impacted by one’s death?

We’re seeing past each other. Damnation is not necessary in the sense that one does not have to enter into “door B” for it to exist. If one is to walk through door B, however, then damnation of the individual is necessary. I’ll try and put this in another way. It is not necessary that any given soul in all history should merit damnation of his own accord for Hell to truly be an option. If a soul were to merit Hell, though, then Hell is the only option.

Does one often find individuals who are purposefully choosing sin now so that they might later enjoy the fires of Hell? Or does not one instead find individuals who do not believe what they are doing is sinful or who do not believe in the fires of Hell at all? If either of the latter, how is it explicable that these will be pleased to accept the reality of Hell after death? If not pleased, how might one explain why they would go there willingly? If not willingly, how might one explain how a being of love might place them there?

All in good time.

Might I ask: all in whose good time? How could it be said that God is personally concerned about each one’s salvation while at the same time consistently ignoring the individuals for the “grand scheme”? If it does not appear to bother God that millions march off to purported destruction amidst the confusion of Protestantism, why might a mere agnostic ever consider that God might be roused long enough to pay him/her specific concern sufficient to answer probing questions?

You are quick to assume that there is goodness other than God. If there were many gods, then your story would be sound. But since there is only one source of goodness, and one source of benevolence, there is only grain to eat.

Is good considered such because it is what God dictates, or is it so considered because it simply is?

If the former, then certainly no goodness would exist apart from God, but then neither would goodness have any fixed meaning. God might declare the color “blue” to be good and none could disagree. There need be no logical constraints to hold him to a given position and none could successfully argue that God is pure goodness since such would exist only as extension of his being, rather than as his being proper.

If the latter, then is not God, himself, subject to an order apparently higher than his own? What might be able to place such a constraint on almighty God?

In either situation, might one not determine a “goodness” apart from God merely by either disagreeing with him in the first instance, or by following with improved or equal precision the requirements of the second?

Consider Ahab’s sparing a captive out of pity: who among us might call this other than good? Yet, strangely, God found it decidedly evil as it was against his wishes so he set a sentence of death upon not only Ahab, but also his family, extended family, his kingdom, and a friendly neighboring kingdom who sought to come to his aide.

If mashed potatoes are the only food, then there wouldn’t be much of an option.

If, indeed.

And in the beginning, God made the flea collar

Again, God is objective, not subjective.

How objective might one consider a being capable of choosing one race to be his favored over another? How objective is a being who might proclaim his love for David (a murder, adulterer, liar, and abuser of trust), repeatedly while completely ignoring Josiah (a far more honorable and just king who was allowed to be butchered by the Egyptians). Indeed, is it not strange that God praised David’s treachery and lack of compassion and condemned Ahab for showing his enemy pity?

 

[Searcher360]

I often ponder why much of what is often labeled “sin” is really what biologists are increasingly viewing as hard wired. Example: Male tendencies to seek multiple seek partners while females tend to be more selective. This is rampant in the animal kingdom and, despite the hopes of many, much the same in human societies.

Why are so many activities & predispositions that increasingly appear hard wired and/or genetic labeled “sin”?

While I am pondering, what about mental illness or simple brain chemistry? A person committing suicide due to what we now view as depression might have been labeled far differently in years past.

In short, why does learning & science change as knowledge grows, yet many religions remain firmly stuck in the middle ages?

 

[dedo]

Certainly God helps us overcome temptation. I think its part of the becoming like God. When we overcome temptation, we do become more like God. I don’t mean we become God but more able to love in the way he loves, which is the nature he gave us in making us in his image. I mean, if you never had to overcome temptation, would you ever be able to love on a divine level?

I’m kind of thinking out loud now.

o.k. I think you said it better.

So, overcoming temptation is a key to being able to understand and practice a more Godly love, which has a sacrificial element.

Interesting.

 

[minkymurph]

o.k. I think you said it better.

So, overcoming temptation is a key to being able to understand and practice a more Godly love, which has a sacrificial element.

Interesting.

I think it is a key. I mean, if you were incapable, or inept, in overcoming temptation, I would say you wouldn’t be able to love in a way beyond what is human. It would be much easier to be a ‘good’ person - use the term ‘good’ loosely - if you were never tempted to be anything else, if you never had to make the choice to be one. Was this not the challenge at the outset of the book of Job? The only reason Job had a love for God was because God had ‘placed a hedge around him,’ and if that hedge were removed Job would no longer love God?

The sacrificial element is an interesting one. Jesus was exposed to temptation. If Jesus had never been exposed to temptation, would he have been able to make the sacrifice he did?

 

[jmvizanko]

The separation itself is the punishment.

Belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. At the termination of any person’s life, God’s presence is revealed so the individual is acutely aware. If that person is well-disposed toward being in God’s presence, he enters it (possibly with some prior purification). If the person avoids God’s presence then he remains out of it.

The key is: while the person is still living, it is impossible to know with absolute certainty how he will react at that time.

And that’s the thing, if I was given the chance to meet god, anf everything about him was good and made sense, I wouldn’t reject him. I just simply, in this life, don’t think he is real.

But I didn’t think Catholics, or most Christians for that matter, believed in this last chance after death. I thought you are screwed if you weren’t a believer when you die. Are you suggesting the possibility for purgatory or heaven for an unbeliever that dies and believes when given a proven reason to believe?

 

[SonCatcher]

And that’s the thing, if I was given the chance to meet god, anf everything about him was good and made sense, I wouldn’t reject him. I just simply, in this life, don’t think he is real.

But I didn’t think Catholics, or most Christians for that matter, believed in this last chance after death. I thought you are screwed if you weren’t a believer when you die. Are you suggesting the possibility for purgatory or heaven for an unbeliever that dies and believes when given a proven reason to believe?

It actually isn’t an “after death” chance. It is the revelation of the person’s spiritual state at the point of death.

This is where the principle called “invincible ignorance” comes into play. If a person lives all his life yet never hears the Gospel so as to understand (thus, cannot make an educated decision for or against), his judgement will be based on his resolve to live his life according to those principles he does understand.

 

[SonCatcher]

I often ponder why much of what is often labeled “sin” is really what biologists are increasingly viewing as hard wired. Example: Male tendencies to seek multiple seek partners while females tend to be more selective. This is rampant in the animal kingdom and, despite the hopes of many, much the same in human societies.

Why are so many activities & predispositions that increasingly appear hard wired and/or genetic labeled “sin”?

While I am pondering, what about mental illness or simple brain chemistry? A person committing suicide due to what we now view as depression might have been labeled far differently in years past.

In short, why does learning & science change as knowledge grows, yet many religions remain firmly stuck in the middle ages?

Human beings are not beasts subject to instinct and pheromones. God-given intellect gives us the ability to channel our impulses positively. Consider the soldier who falls on a grenade to save his platoon. He acts against his nature of self-preservation, yet his action of safeguarding the lives of his comrades is habitual.

Sin is self-seeking and damaging to others. You say that the tendency to infidelity is ingrained. I suppose you also recognize that it is emotionally damaging (also physically damaging when STDs are involved) to the betrayed spouse (since you cite advances in science at the end of your post). It is therefore desirable to establish habits of fidelity in order to protect the emotional well-being of the spouse. Failure to protect from harm when it is possible to do so is just as serious as taking direct action to harm. Since all mentally stable persons are in control of their own actions, they are always able to prevent harm; even that emotional harm caused through infidelity.

The Catholic Church recognizes that some people lack control over their faculties, which reduces their culpability. She certainly isn’t stuck in the middle ages.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t follow.

Was it not your claim that God participated in the creation of the imperfect with their consent?

My apologies That’s a question for someone who’s smarter than me.

OK.

Yes and no. In the sense of “it beats the alternative of being damned in heaven”, then yes. In the sense of “God, who has an eternal will, has eternally damned a person to hell before all time,” then no.

Why might it be worse to be damned in Heaven? What might be imagined to be worse than eternal torment?

Also, why would God be restricted to those two options if everything is necessarily at his discretion?

The consequence of hell is a side-effect of the design of our nature-- to only be truly happy with God.

Why would a god of love purposefully plan for the torment of those who would not love him (by “the design of our nature”)?

I would say both, equally, but for different reasons. The higher appetites would be drawn to door A, while the lower to door B. It seems, from a social aspect, that the tendency towards one or the either is also dependent on how acceptable the Church or its teachings are. That is to say, if God is calling person A to deliver the message of holiness by example to person B, but fails to do so, then person B suffers on behalf of person A, inasmuch as person A suffers. This is not to say that the tendencies of person B are steeply inclined towards disordered conduct by nature. We live in a modern society that focuses a lot on the lower appetites. So we are more prone to door B, unfortunately.

Assuming some of the higher appetites are such things as the desire to be honorable, altruistic and self-less, while the lower appetites might be to gorge on chocolate cake, let us imagine an individual who might be moderately honorable, somewhat generous, fully honest, but intensely interested in chocolate cake. Supposing such a one could care less about the existence of a loving god so long as there was chocolate cake to be had, what might happen once the cake is removed (after death)? Might such a one be inclined to make a new decision regarding God given his/her altogether new perspective and loss of mainline distraction?

How might one imagine such a one to be so focused on chocolate cake that even the loss of its near proximity might still encourage the soul to reject a loving creator in a face-to-face encounter (during which it must be assumed to be near impossible to fail to witness some of the positive aspects of remaining within his presence) in favor of a habit which may no longer be indulged (and for which, lacking a body, the spirit may no longer crave)?

Properly, yes. This is the reason many turn to serving God and others rather than themselves. They understand, by their nature, that they are designed for greater things.

But if they are not permitted to change their minds after death, how could any make a proper choice of serving God aside from their nature since, during life, they lived under the assumption that there was only ever their nature to serve?

Pretend chocolate cake is autonomy. That’s all we’ve ever wanted! To make ourselves experience pleasure and gratification on command! Right?

No. Might I suggest that most individuals with any depth are more interested in sharing pleasure with others? A pleasure shared is a pleasure doubled. Additionally, most individuals are more than willing to perform even difficult work if the rewards are worth the effort.

Might not the difficulty lie more in the concern of whether or not the rewards are real?

The reality of eating chocolate cake for the rest of eternity comes as bitter to most. Especially when you realize at judgment that it doesn’t make you happy; when you realize what you forfeited was happiness, and now your just stuck with chocolate cake (which you only liked because you thought it made you happy).

Precisely the point. So what then would necessitate a soul to remain one instant longer in Hell than it would require for it to make this realization–logically the first step towards redemption?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I really don’t know because I don’t have the perspective of viewing creation from God’s point of view. From the Bible, it seems that both people in Heaven and Hell do receive some understanding of why they end up where they end up.

It may be that you could say: "Why not do “x, y, or z,” with the people who end up in hell? It may be that those solutions would be worse than the Heaven / Hell / Purgatory solution that Catholics believe in.

Thus, for me, the logical approach is to “see for myself” if God exists by seeking God.

OK, fair enough.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Except I can’t choose what I believe is true or not. I don’t choose to go to your god’s hell any more than you choose to go to the hell of the god of the Muslims. You just don’t think their religion is true, just as I don’t think your religion is true. I couldn’t choose to believe that your religion is true any more than I could choose to believe that 2+2=5.

If you don’t choose what you believe–who does?

We all choose what we we believe. Most people I know don’t give much thought to what they believe–they say I believe this–and yet can’t tell you why because they don’t think about it. I have people ask questions about certain of our beliefs and I offer them things to read as a start–yet often they just don’t take the time to read–it really isn’t as important to them as say the football game thats on–they don’t want toput out the effort. They have a choice and they make a choice–the real question is how good is the information that it is based on–and is their conclusion reasonable based on the information? Is there additional information they should seek out? It is absud to claim they don’t have a choice.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I understand you more clearly now. Certainly, God calls us each moment of our lives to him; sometimes it affects people in a very grave way. Nonetheless, it begs the person the question of, “what will you do to change your life?” Some people make a full 180, like Saul when he was knocked off his horse. Others let it impact their emotions, but don’t let their emotions move their will. Still others let their emotions move their will, but do not follow through such that they do not will to train their lower appetites to be subservient to their upper.

So does God’s love for us instill fear or not?

And yet we try, day in and day out, to change God’s schedule to meet our needs. Or we decide that there is no schedule besides our own. When we go trying to make it all about “me”, we meet dead ends. Catastrophe is a result of sin, because it is us trying to* change* God’s plan. Because God’s plan is the only one that results in salvation, gravely changing it results in damnation. I feel like that answer is lacking. Maybe you’ll catch something I didn’t.

If God is omniscient, is not his schedule unchangeable? After all, would he not have foreseen any attempts to change his schedule from the beginning so as to allow him to modify it against such eventualities even before the first person walked the Earth?

Looking back on Matthew 5:45, it would seem that the parable is indeed talking about sufficient grace for salvation, not the superabundance of grace in beatific vision.

Looking at Matthew 20 the discussion appears to be about laborers being hired and then being paid a wage. How would this parallel with them being provided grace, which is essentially free? Besides, does Jesus not state at the beginning of the chapter that he is explaining what the Kingdom of Heaven is like? It is not at all clear that he is also explaining what the Kingdom of Earth is like.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Job is likely a story, and not so much an account. Goodness, its long though. It seems to say the same thing over and over and over… zzz. But in retrospect, its always a theological masterpiece. It reminds me of the movie “Cast Away”. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen it. The exposition is about half the movie, but in its entirety, the story-line is incredible. Now, some people might watch Cast Away and think it was the most boring movie ever. It’s because the sentiments go deeper than the first impression. It’s very bittersweet and savory, like a fine wine.
So what is the point of Job? Why would God do this to Job, an upright man?

Actually, might one more specifically question: “Why might God do this to Job’s children?”

Additionally, is it not plain why God does this to Job? Is it not simply the whimsy of a god able and willing to provoke a test to prove a point to a rival?

Which loving father would invoke such a challenge upon his most upright child in order to satisfy a disagreement with an envious neighbor?

In light of this, let’s take a look at the vineyard parable and Matthew 5:45. God is not vengeful being. He does not punish the evil-doers because of their many sins, so to speak.

The words of God and his son both strongly suggest otherwise.

Even the just are afflicted with this human condition.

Who is truly just in God’s sight?

If you’ve ever done any reading on the life of a space station astronaut, you’ll see that they are working out literally 24/7. Why is this? There is no resistance to their muscles! Still, some come back to earth unable to walk because of excessive muscle loss. Gravity provides the resistance we need to keep our muscles strong. It also allows us to attain higher levels of fitness. It would be fruitless to put a weak person in space to get stronger. Their muscles would decay almost entirely, and they wouldn’t be able to move around.

While there isn’t an absolute reason why God allows suffering (very much case by case), it is my opinion that this resistance is here to build us up, not tear us down.

This makes reasonable sense; there was even a time when I proclaimed as much.

Except, how does one explain this building up? For what ultimate purpose does it serve? Is Heaven full of temptations that need overcoming?

For this, he doesn’t give us any more than we can’t handle, since he doesn’t demand the impossible, and wills our salvation.

How does this logically follow since there are those who do crack under the strain of their woes and who never properly recover? Indeed, there are those who lose their faith not only in God, but in mankind as well.

 

[SonCatcher]

If you don’t choose what you believe–who does?

We all choose what we we believe. Most people I know don’t give much thought to what they believe–they say I believe this–and yet can’t tell you why because they don’t think about it. I have people ask questions about certain of our beliefs and I offer them things to read as a start–yet often they just don’t take the time to read–it really isn’t as important to them as say the football game thats on–they don’t want toput out the effort. They have a choice and they make a choice–the real question is how good is the information that it is based on–and is their conclusion reasonable based on the information? Is there additional information they should seek out? It is absud to claim they don’t have a choice.

The Peace of Christ,
Mark

Actually, jmvizanko does have a valid statement (although it is strongly worded a la Calvin).

Those who have faith did not come to it of their own. It is a gift from God.

[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 2:8[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I’m not asking you to answer a question with a question. I’m asking for you to explain the ones that didn’t change even though they had proper experience. Sorry for the confusion.

For example, how would you explain ex cons who committ crimes so they can be put back in prison?

1. Sheer stupidity/Fetal Alcohol
2. A lack of knowledge/experience of any alternative life-style
3. Having acquired a taste for the things/feelings their previous life afforded
4. Substance abuse/dependence
5. A feeling of belonging
6. Loyalty to comrades on the outside/inside
7. Having learned better methods of carrying out their specialty while in prison
8. Finding no other gainful employment
9. Having no other ties to family or friends, nor any social responsibilities
10. Revenge/inner pain
11. Boredom/idleness
12. Fear/coercion
13. Laziness
14. Etc.

Indeed, if the broken are not fixed, but merely set aside for a time and then released, how might one expect them to be cured or healed?

Why might one expect God to consider the “permanent” holding method to be the perfect solution instead of the “counseling/repairing” method?

 

[MarkInOregon]

I
Just because the universe is beautiful does not mean that it was made.

You are correct. Would you do me the favor of telling me what that first single cell that sprang to life was supposed to do? Reproduce itself exactly? Are most mutations to a cell harmful or benefical? What do most harmful mutations do to the cell? What are the odd’s of the less likely random beneficial mutations giving rise to the order and diversity you see? If it is logical to believe that a series of random mutations gave rise to all of this–what kind of time frame would be needed? Does the record support this? Is this the logical answer?

And for any “miracle” you list, some child dies somewhere from a painful and incurable disease, or some natural catastrophe destroys the lives of thousands or millions.

And this proves what? What you complain about is normal for our fallen world (the result of our initial disobedience). Is your complaint that God doesn’t intervene everywhere? That you don’t understand why God choses to intervene here but not there?

And I have poised one of the largest arguments that I find convincing for thinking your god specifically (not necessarily any god) does not exist, in this thread. If you have a response to it, lets hear it. The arbitrarily, infinitely cruel injustice of hell is the best argument for why your god does not exist in my opinion.

I think many here have pointed out that they don’t think it arbitrary or infinitely cruel or injust–you have stated it as if it were fact. I didn’t read a clear and convincing argument supporting your assertion–of course I could have missed it.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[SonCatcher]

1. Sheer stupidity/Fetal Alcohol
2. A lack of knowledge/experience of any alternative life-style
3. Having acquired a taste for the things/feelings their previous life afforded
4. Substance abuse/dependence
5. A feeling of belonging
6. Loyalty to comrades on the outside/inside
7. Having learned better methods of carrying out their specialty while in prison
8. Finding no other gainful employment
9. Having no other ties to family or friends, nor any social responsibilities
10. Revenge/inner pain
11. Boredom/idleness
12. Fear/coercion
13. Laziness
14. Etc.

Indeed, if the broken are not fixed, but merely set aside for a time and then released, how might one expect them to be cured or healed?

Some of those reduce culpability. Others increase it.

Why might one expect God to consider the “permanent” holding method to be the perfect solution instead of the “counseling/repairing” method?

Purgatory is that “repairing” for those who are well-disposed to be with God but are not yet able to enter His presence.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

That ought to be looked at on a case by case basis. I don’t know anyone who would turn down an eternity in bliss. Furthermore, God does not call every person to the same way of life. He designed us to live out a certain vocation that is optimal to our happiness. If we aren’t at least fulfilled, then we ought to step back (again on a case by case basis) and discern if that it indeed the way of life God is calling such a person to.

Perhaps one does not believe that God is love based on the evidence at hand. Perhaps such a one considers God to be deceptive in his aims. Perhaps such a one gives God little credibility. Regardless, is not such a one standing against God? Is not such a one to be one of those Jesus promises to disown on the day of judgment? Is such a one to hope for mercy while at the same time doubting its sincerity?

Yet, might not such a one still value friendship? Still love family? Still pursue aims that help his/her fellow man?

Would God merely allow such a one entrance into Heaven regardless?

Well, that’s the point. They were in an intimate friendship with God. They weren’t slaves, they were friends. When they retreated from the friendship, they became slaves to themselves. It’s important to understand that many of the old Testament books are theological events, not actual accounts.

Actually, is not the point that they were more akin to pets? How else might they have become slaves by God’s dis-ownership? Did God “un”-friend them?

Additionally, is it not frustrating to imagine that the fall of mankind is referred to as fact, but that the details of same remain allegorical? Why would not a god of infinite truth inspire the true-story instead of a myth?

God is always the first mover. He does his part. He offers us reconciliation through Jesus Christ. He cannot, however, reconcile us to himself on our behalf.

In this situation, the “first mover” chose to first move humanity out of Eden, then to brood for several thousand years, then to send himself to Earth in order to have himself tortured and killed, then to blame mankind for that death while at the same time claiming it was the sole means by which same could be redeemed from his awful wrath…which even then might not be satisfied given that redemption is not certain since there is to occur a final judgment during which the wheat and chaff may be separated so that one might be burned and the other finally saved…so seemingly Jesus’ death merely allowed for the court to be adjourned.

Does God not seem, at least on first examination, either extremely unbalanced, childish, vindictive, strange, or all of the above?

They certainly ate from the tree of life before hand. This is why they were immortal. They wouldn’t die unless they ate from the tree of knowledge. The immortality was dependent on their relationship with God, not so much the fruit of life.

May I politely refute that claim?

21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove them out, he placed on the east side[e] of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Why am I trying to prove that again? I think we’re seeing past each other.

Noted.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Well, perhaps I’m loosing my sense of humour.

I truly hope not: if the Irish lose their sense of humor, what hope is there for the rest of the world?

Because Jesus had not come in flesh and the Holy Spirit had not been poured out. Of course I admit it’s a theory and despite Jesus having come in flesh and the Holy Spirit being poured out, we continue to incorrectly describe God. Why does God not simply correct all these errors? I would argue He does. However, he doesn’t do it by making sure no one thinks anything inaccurate in the first place. My theory is the OT is more about telling us what God is not as opposed to what He is; a history of how the human race struggles in its relationship with God, and the OT records how the Israelites misunderstood many things, so we may understand the struggle of coming to know God, that others struggled with their understanding of God in the same way we do. Now that does not mean they didn’t know anything at all. They had knowledge of the Divine Law, and they knew God through the Law and the written word. However, can you really know someone from reading about them and being told about them? Up to a point yes. However, to really know someone requires engagement with them on an intimate level. The most intimate way to know God is through the Incarnation when He became flesh.

This is a fairly good concept.

However, given that Jesus was said to have often read from the scrolls when at temple, was he not in a strange position of reading potentially outright fabrications about his father, while at the same time saying nothing about the contrast? Is God not as concerned about the details of his own record than he is about the very most minute sin committed by the smallest member of mankind on Earth? Consider the below story as a good example of something he might have found important to correct:

I’d have to look up the passage to understand the context in which this was said and I just don’t have time at the minute. So I’ll come back to you in more detail. Off the top of my head I would say was the disaster decreed because of a bad decision or course of action, and the Israelites could have avoided disaster had they taken a different course?

It was more like this:

13 The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, “Look, the other prophets without exception are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably.”

14 But Micaiah said, “As surely as the LORD lives, I can tell him only what the LORD tells me.”

15 When he arrived, the king asked him, “Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or not?”

“Attack and be victorious,” he answered, “for the LORD will give it into the king’s hand.”

16 The king said to him, “How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?”

17 Then Micaiah answered, “I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, ‘These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.’”

18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Didn’t I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?”

19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the LORD asked.

“‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’

23 “So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.”