God the Father

[Melisa Jane]

I wouldn't say. This book touches the fundamentals of the Christian religion in relation to other fiction. This fiction can be misleading to non-religious people who won't be able to define where the fiction lies.

I agree with you 100%!

I still don't know why I don't agree with the "misleading" part. I mean, if they understand that it's fictional, why would they be mislead? I mean the non religious people.

[Melisa Jane]

I think that even religious people will have a little trouble as its very smoothly written. Don't think there's any harm in asking why or saying what if? The film Noah did alot more damage to a vital and important part of scripture.

I think the film did more harm because it was meant to replace/ represent the exact events that happened during the time of Noah, if the film producers made it clear that it was purely fictional, the harm would have been avoided

[Melisa Jane]

I'm a little confused by the quote. Humans are limited but those are the constraints we put on ourselves beyond religion. It is hard to perceive that someone with all power can be limited by a human action. Maybe that's the point.

Maybe it means that if humans decide to follow the devil, the God will be limited in such a way that he won't save them when the end times come.

[Melisa Jane]

I don't find it any weird. God has given banking freedom of choice. He doesn't walk or work with you without your consent—this way, he is limited.

I finally found someone who has put my thoughts so clearly. I think this is how human actions limit God. He can't push humans to do what they don't want to do.

[Bookreviwer2020]

I think that resembles a lot what I have read recently and it is because parents teach us to be the way they are because they don't know other way even if they would want us to be different. So God limites his children action because He knows no other way to teach them and his children limit his actions because they want to be different, but don't know how to really do it, only to rebel against him. This can be seen and very often used when Lucifer is described as the son of God how go against him. A kind of different perspective.

Well that's different. But Christians may argue with you there because God is all knowing, his knowledge is pure and clean and life.
I think a better perspective would be that He sees the good and the bad way and encourages us to live in the good way which is the way He lives.

Yes I agree we are encouraged to live the right way and warned against the wrong way

[Melisa Jane]

It's quite an odd sentiment. I would think it to be the opposite: that our actions are given more freedom of movement by God. Freedom, of course, being defined as freedom within doing what is right.

Yes, and to add to your statement, if we extend this freedom and do what's wrong, then God will only try to show us the light, but he won't force us to follow it. In this way, our actions will be limiting his actions upon our lives.

[Melisa Jane]

It sounds like very uncommon theology. Much of the foundation of Christianity rests on the building block of God being an omnipotent, omniscient Creator. The interpretation that I would glean from this statement that still fits widely accepted Christian theology would be that God is limited only in the knowledge that he has given His children free will. He CAN step in, but He doesn't always because people are free to make their own choices. It is a controversial statement to connect to a book that hinges on religion.

I agree. The statement can be difficult to interpret or be misunderstood too.

Yes, and I think biblical statements should be as clear as possible. The damages done by unclear statements such as this one can be very fatal. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Melisa Jane]

I wouldn't say. This book touches the fundamentals of the Christian religion in relation to other fiction. This fiction can be misleading to non-religious people who won't be able to define where the fiction lies.

I totally agree.

I don't see how non religious people will be mislead by this fictional novel. But everyone has an opinion.

[Melisa Jane]

It sounds like very uncommon theology. Much of the foundation of Christianity rests on the building block of God being an omnipotent, omniscient Creator. The interpretation that I would glean from this statement that still fits widely accepted Christian theology would be that God is limited only in the knowledge that he has given His children free will. He CAN step in, but He doesn't always because people are free to make their own choices. It is a controversial statement to connect to a book that hinges on religion.

This is very true, and this statement is very controversial.
The statement is very sweeping and dangerous but your explanation does it justice.

If misinterpreted, it can be dangerous. But a keen look at this sentence will prove its validity.

[Melisa Jane]

In my place, there is a saying that nothing happens without gods approval. So, maybe god's sons do what he planned for them to do, without even realising it!

I think that's debatable. I don't understand how God can approve of sinful acts. I think he just give freewill to people to do whatever they like.

[Melisa Jane]

I wouldn't say. This book touches the fundamentals of the Christian religion in relation to other fiction. This fiction can be misleading to non-religious people who won't be able to define where the fiction lies.

This is true, hence the book will be more understood by believers compared to non-believers. I can imagine the influence of being introduced to this book before recognizing the Bible.

On the contrary, I think non believers will enjoy this book more. This is because most Christians are already familiar with the storyline. The non believers will meet a completely new book. And the fact that the author makes it clear that it's fictional will prevent them from misinterpreting the Bible.

[Melisa Jane]

I love how the author portrays the character of God the Father. I see his actions all over the book are done with reason. I love the way the author portrays God's righteous way of judging, His judgement is fair to everyone not just to one party. He's also a God of love, as much as He chases Adam and Eve out the the garden, He still offers solution to them in their their daily lives.

Yeah, and the author also appreciate all the good things that came with them being driven out of the garden. Adam is even more proud to feed his family and lead them.

[Melisa Jane]

Killing Abel is a fictional description of a loving Father and His children founded on what little is disclosed in the Bible, in the book of Genesis.

What is your opinion on the context of this book in relation to the description of God, "God the Father is limited by His children's actions and His Children are limited by His actions as well"?.

Religion is a fascinating topic however the Bible describes God as Omnipotent and Omniscient, therefore how could he be limited by the things he ultimately created. He knows you before you know yourself.

Maybe only his actions upon your life can be limited by your choices. For instance, if you continue sinning even after he has shown you the way, then he might not be able to save you from the hellfire.

[Melisa Jane]

In my opinion, I think the statement: "God the Father is limited by His children's actions and His Children are limited by His actions as well." Is out of place. I think God can't be limited by His children's actions. God is all powerful and His ability is limitless.

Yeah, he is all powerful. But if you continually choose to do the wrong even after he has shown you the right, don't you think he will not be able to save your soul from perishing?

[Melisa Jane]

I guess it depends on someone's beliefs. Some Christians believe in these things. However, I find the whole idea of our Creator being a 'father' and having sons is like a polytheism belief. However, the book is only fictional and he is writing to interest people so I think he is trying to entertain more than anything

I agree. The main purpose of this book is entertaining. Not to be religiously acceptable. That's where most folks miss it.