R3x asked a philisophical question, with his own mix, on a thread that was deleted. I responded, and when I hit post I was greeted with a "This post has been deleted" message. Since I've actually spent time pondering this question, I'll post it, in the utmost seriousness, with a serious answer.
r3x29yz4a asked:
can God create a boulder so big that even he can't lift it?
and if he did, could he work out to get stronger or is his strength level set?
My response:
That is a trick question meant to sabatage ones faith in an omniscient, all powerful God. If he could create a boulder heavier than he could lift, that would mean he was not all powerful, because he could not lift it. But if he could not create something heavier than he could lift, that would also mean he was not all powerful. However, if you are to argue that it was God who created the laws of physics that determine the amount of force and energy it would require to lift a boulder of a certain mass, you could argue that God might not have to adhere to the same rules of physics that we do.
but would god create laws that he himself doesn't have to follow? if so, then what's the point of having laws in the first place?
Every thing he created seems to be under some form of law to keep things from becoming anarchic. Why would God create unnecessary laws for himself that would limit his abilities?
but is god a part of god's plan?
lets say there is a god, then his heavy influence on earth dictates that he is.
Quote:
Balloonknot said:
How about this scenario, I find where you live, beat your head in with a Cinder Block, Take pictures and Share them with the Rest of the MB community.
Sounds pretty good to me
Oh...my...God....I have to agree with Balloonknot. Swing by my place on the way and I'll help (Montreal's not so far from Long Island).
i think its funny that you guys resort to threats of violence when the philosphy gets too dense.
The philosophy isn't brilliant though. You are applying human limitations and comprehension to an omnicient being. You are assuming (by way of comparrison) that we should be bound to the same existence as a batch of sea-monkeys that we may hatch (note: merely hatch, not create from nothing to our own design). The examples you are listing here are ridiculous. God exists above the limitations of our existence.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
but would god create laws that he himself doesn't have to follow? if so, then what's the point of having laws in the first place?
Oddly enough you've stumbled oppon the key to this question. God does not create laws that he doen't have to follow. There ARE things that God cannot do. He cannot defy the very laws of logic that He Himself defines. God cannot be God and not God at the same time in the same relationship. God cannot create a new God he cannot lie and He cannot create a boulder that He cannot move. God creates from within himself not from without because there is nothing outside of God.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
but would god create laws that he himself doesn't have to follow? if so, then what's the point of having laws in the first place?
Oddly enough you've stumbled oppon the key to this question. God does not create laws that he doen't have to follow. There ARE things that God cannot do. He cannot defy the very laws of logic that He Himself defines. God cannot be God and not God at the same time in the same relationship. God cannot create a new God he cannot lie and He cannot create a boulder that He cannot move. God creates from within himself not from without because there is nothing outside of God.
but wouldn't that make him a slave to his own creation? a slave to the rules of fate that he himself wrote. wouldn't that stop him from making miracles since he cannot change the destiny that he wrote and is slave too?
therefore any miracle or "act of god" would have to be predestined and predetermined.
and that means that EVERYTHING is predetermined by god at the start of time and the creation, so there is no free will at all.
Quote:
but wouldn't that make him a slave to his own creation? a slave to the rules of fate that he himself wrote. wouldn't that stop him from making miracles since he cannot change the destiny that he wrote and is slave too?
No He's not a slave to his creation, He simply is what He is. He is unchanging. When he creates something he doesn't need to go back and fixes it He exists in all things and in all time and knows the result of His actions when He makes them. I don't see how this limits him from miracles and frankly miracles don't deny the laws of logic.
Quote:
therefore any miracle or "act of god" would have to be predestined and predetermined.
Yea, God does "plan ahead" (I realise that's a crass understatement of the perfect will of God)
Quote:
and that means that EVERYTHING is predetermined by god at the start of time and the creation, so there is no free will at all.
Freewill is an often missunderstood concept. Free will means simply that you are free to act within your nature. A fish is free in the ocean even though he can't breathe on dry land. It was predetermined from before my birth that i cannot breath under watter without assistance. I can't then sink myself under the sea and will myself to breathe. Does that mean my will isn't free? In a certain way it isn't it all depends on how you define "free will". If your definition of free will is the freedom to defy those limits that have been predetermined to us then I guess we simply don't have a free willHowever if you define free will as the freedom to act within our nature then we do. An axample would be Judas, he freely defied Christ and in doing so God's plan that He had forordained and fortold through the prophets came to fruition.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
No He's not a slave to his creation, He simply is what He is. He is unchanging. When he creates something he doesn't need to go back and fixes it He exists in all things and in all time and knows the result of His actions when He makes them. I don't see how this limits him from miracles and frankly miracles don't deny the laws of logic. [/quotes]
because miracles by definition radically alter the course of natural events set in place by god. so when he does a miracle he's basically changing the course of fate/destiny that he already preordained.
Quote:
Yea, God does "plan ahead" (I realise that's a crass understatement of the perfect will of God)
if god's perfect then why aren't humans perfect if we're created in his image?
Quote:
Freewill is an often missunderstood concept. Free will means simply that you are free to act within your nature.
So you don't believe people can change? Do you believe that who we are and our actions are set from birth by defining our nature?
Quote:
A fish is free in the ocean even though he can't breathe on dry land. It was predetermined from before my birth that i cannot breath under watter without assistance. I can't then sink myself under the sea and will myself to breathe. Does that mean my will isn't free? In a certain way it isn't it all depends on how you define "free will". If your definition of free will is the freedom to defy those limits that have been predetermined to us then I guess we simply don't have a free willHowever if you define free will as the freedom to act within our nature then we do. An axample would be Judas, he freely defied Christ and in doing so God's plan that He had forordained and fortold through the prophets came to fruition.
but was it really free will if the actions themselves were already decided by god? isn't the whole point of free will that we're here and we determine our nature (good/evil) not that we're puppets of god's plan for destiny.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
if god's perfect then why aren't humans perfect if we're created in his image?
Originally, Adam and Eve were perfect. They could not have gotten sick, over weight, old, and they would never have died. The reason humans aren't perfect goes back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve's sin. God had issued a command, "Out of every tree of the garden you may eat, but as for the tree of the knowledge of Good and Bad you must not eat, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."
While Eve was near the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad, the serpent, possessed by Satan, began to tell her that if she ate from it she would not die, but would instead by like God. Thoroughly decieved, she ate the fruit and brought some to Adam. However, Adam was not decieved but ate the fruit anyway. So for disobeying the only rule God gave them they were punished by losing their perfection and they transferred that imperfection to their children.
Quote:
but was it really free will if the actions themselves were already decided by god? isn't the whole point of free will that we're here and we determine our nature (good/evil) not that we're puppets of god's plan for destiny.
Ecclesiastes 9:11 says, "time and unpredictable occurance happen to them all." I have a hard time believe God has a "plan" for every person. If that were true that would make God unjust because nobody could choose of their own free will to worship Him or not, and so any punishment would be unrighteous. Also the whole test in the garden of Eden would have been a farce with mans eternal life hanging in an unjust balance. That would not be the act of a loving, righteous God.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
if god's perfect then why aren't humans perfect if we're created in his image?
Originally, Adam and Eve were perfect. They could not have gotten sick, over weight, old, and they would never have died. The reason humans aren't perfect goes back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve's sin. God had issued a command, "Out of every tree of the garden you may eat, but as for the tree of the knowledge of Good and Bad you must not eat, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."
While Eve was near the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad, the serpent, possessed by Satan, began to tell her that if she ate from it she would not die, but would instead by like God. Thoroughly decieved, she ate the fruit and brought some to Adam. However, Adam was not decieved but ate the fruit anyway. So for disobeying the only rule God gave them they were punished by losing their perfection and they transferred that imperfection to their children.
By standards of human logic, this makes no sense. If Adam and Eve were "perfect," how could Eve have been tempted or deceived? Does not "perfection" mean an infallibility to what we think of as human weaknesses?
It's a nice story, but that's all it is.
Quote:
if god's perfect then why aren't humans perfect if we're created in his image?
Because beig created in his likeness isn't the same as being exact duplicates.
Quote:
So you don't believe people can change?
I didn't say they couldn't change. People CAN change all they want within thier nature. It's like I said, you can't will yourself to breathe under watter, because you are limited by your nature.
Quote:
Do you believe that who we are and our actions are set from birth by defining our nature?
I'm not sure this is correct grahmmar, because I'm having trouble figuring what you're asking. But to try to answer I do think who we are is defined by our nature to a degree, we can fine tune that and express ourselves, but we can't redefine our nature. That's not the same as our every action being controlled.
Quote:
but was it really free will if the actions themselves were already decided by god?
That's why I point out that people define free will differently. Depending on how you define free will perhaps you wouldn't say it's really free will. Free will hasn't been guarenteed so I don't think it proves anything to point out that your deffinition isn't being honoured.
Quote:
isn't the whole point of free will that we're here and we determine our nature (good/evil) not that we're puppets of god's plan for destiny.
No, I would dissagree that that isn't the point of free will to determine our own nature. The Bible does say that all things work together for good for those who's trust is in Him. For that to come to fruition God must have some hand in our destiny.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
if god's perfect then why aren't humans perfect if we're created in his image?
Originally, Adam and Eve were perfect. They could not have gotten sick, over weight, old, and they would never have died. The reason humans aren't perfect goes back to the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve's sin. God had issued a command, "Out of every tree of the garden you may eat, but as for the tree of the knowledge of Good and Bad you must not eat, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die."
While Eve was near the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Bad, the serpent, possessed by Satan, began to tell her that if she ate from it she would not die, but would instead by like God. Thoroughly decieved, she ate the fruit and brought some to Adam. However, Adam was not decieved but ate the fruit anyway. So for disobeying the only rule God gave them they were punished by losing their perfection and they transferred that imperfection to their children.
By standards of human logic, this makes no sense. If Adam and Eve were "perfect," how could Eve have been tempted or deceived? Does not "perfection" mean an infallibility to what we think of as human weaknesses?
It's a nice story, but that's all it is.
Being created in a state of perfection still makes you a created being. Perfect in regard to the original created state of humanity means human beings had a clean slate - they hadn't done anything against the will of God and weren't accountable for anything they had done, thus they weren't required to live under the consequences of corruption. Image of God means that human beings were created to reflect God, not to be God. As such, they were not all-powerful or all-knowing, and thus were not infallible and impervious to temptation. If you don't like that way of explaining it, go find the Tardis, jump back to the eighteenth century, and take it up with John Wesley.
Scripture says in as many words 'God cannot be tempted, nor does He tempt anyone'. (Look it up for yourself, if you've got nothing better to do than waste your time arguing with me.) But nowhere does it extend the same assertion to human beings. By your logic Lucifer would never have fallen, as he, too, would have been immune to temptation.
It's never just 'a nice story', if you're really willing to do more than scratch the surface and jump to conclusions.
Plus are they ever said to be "perfect"?
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
It's never just 'a nice story', if you're really willing to do more than scratch the surface and jump to conclusions.
All you have are words on a page, translated and re-translated, over the last couple of millenia or so. "Jumping to conclusions" seems to me really all you have left.
If your own faith says that this is true and is The Way, that's fine. But don't foist it on the rest of us and don't get mad if others wish to interpret differently the same texts you're interpreting.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Plus are they ever said to be "perfect"?
It was implied by Genesis 1:31
31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good.
By deeming everything "very good", they met Gods standards and since Gods standard is nothing less than perfection, all these things could be deemed perfect.
Should I get in on this conversation?
.......MmmmmmmmmmNo.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Plus are they ever said to be "perfect"?
It was implied by Genesis 1:31
31 After that God saw everything he had made and, look! [it was] very good.
By deeming everything "very good", they met Gods standards and since Gods standard is nothing less than perfection, all these things could be deemed perfect.
Very good, yes, but I think if they we PERFECT then they wouldn't have made a mistake. very good might be interpreted as perfect, but the implicit should alwayse be interpreted in light of the explicit and we have explicit demonstration that they were not perfect.
This all reminds me of dogs chasing their tails...round and round....
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Very good, yes, but I think if they we PERFECT then they wouldn't have made a mistake. very good might be interpreted as perfect, but the implicit should alwayse be interpreted in light of the explicit and we have explicit demonstration that they were not perfect.
but they chose to disobey Gods command using their own free will. It was not a mistake, it was deliberate. How does that translate to imperfection?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
This all reminds me of dogs chasing their tails...round and round....
Had to get your two cents in didn't you? I guess we couldn't discuss specifics of what we believe without being told how stupid we are. Thank you for your contribution.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Very good, yes, but I think if they we PERFECT then they wouldn't have made a mistake. very good might be interpreted as perfect, but the implicit should alwayse be interpreted in light of the explicit and we have explicit demonstration that they were not perfect.
but they chose to disobey Gods command using their own free will. It was not a mistake, it was deliberate. How does that translate to imperfection?
They chose to do wrong. They chose sin. Perhaps your defining perfect differently than I am, because I define perfect as without flaw and the decision to sin was a flawed decision.
You're welcome.
And I never said you were stupid.
My implication was that, like the dog, you're never going to "catch the tail" you're after, which is the Answer to What Is God. The dog isn't stupid for chasing his tail. He chases it because that's his nature.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
You're welcome.
And I never said you were stupid.
My implication was that, like the dog, you're never going to "catch the tail" you're after, which is the Answer to What Is God. The dog isn't stupid for chasing his tail. He chases it because that's his nature.
see: back handed compliment 
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
You're welcome.
And I never said you were stupid.
My implication was that, like the dog, you're never going to "catch the tail" you're after, which is the Answer to What Is God. The dog isn't stupid for chasing his tail. He chases it because that's his nature.
Is it your nature to chase nice big and hairy manly assholes to violate?
Quote:
PJP said:
Is it your nature to chase nice big and hairy manly assholes to violate?
That sounds like you're offering yours...(nice use of description, you clearly put some thought into it).
And let the record show, you derailed the thread.
I'm a derailer.
Quote:
PJP said:
I'm a derailer.
Is that the same as a power bottom?
To bring this thread back on track, how does the ability to choose to obey or disobey constitute imperfection?
They may have been perfect, but they were still human. Lets say you really want something, but you know you can't have it. The more you dwell on the object of your desire the more you will crave it until you try to get it. It's human nature: the more you want something, the more you'll try to get it. It can work both for us and against us.
An example of it working against:
A kid sees a new video game he wants. His parents say they can't afford it, but instead of giving it up and walking away he lets his desires take over and he steals it. Somebody catches the kid and reports him, causing him to get in trouble. He could have avoided the trouble by walking away and ignoring his desire, but chose the wrong path.
An example of it working for:
You have an idea for a book you want to write. For the amount of time, energy, and research it will take everyone tries to convince you that it won't pay off enough to make it worth your while, but you refuse to listen to them and work to write it anyway. It gets rave reviews and opens up the door for you to write more stories in a new career.
My point is, Eve knew not to eat the fruit. But Satan, using the guise of a snake, convinced her that if she ate the fruit nothing would happen and she would be like God. Since Satan is cunning, who knows exactly what he did to convince her, but he did and instead of turning away and listening to God her desire began to take hold. Adam, on the other hand, was not decieved as stated in 1 Timothy 2:14- "14 Also, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression." He knew better and didn't believe the lie for one second, but he still chose to do it.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
So how does the ability to choose to obey or disobey constitute imperfection?
To obey or disobey a flawed creature wouldn't, but to sin against your creator is imperfect. God is absolutely perfect therefore he defines perfection to disobey Him is flawed.
Before we continue will you please define perfect as you're using it, because you say they were both perfect and human, but then you go to show that thier humanity is the foundation of thier flaws "Eve knew...BUT" but what? If she was perfect she would know what's right and she would do what's right.
I'll try and explain it.
As I see it, Adam and Eve were created without sin in them. They were given perfect health and perfect bodies with the gift of living forever on an Earth designed for their comfort. They still had human traits like free will, but they had no fear, no hatred, or any other quirks that come along with them. As a simple test of obedience all they had to do was not eat the fruit of one tree. Seeing as it was a test they must have had the option of disobeying God, right? But they had no reason to question Gods authority until Satan came along.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
"Eve knew...BUT" but what? If she was perfect she would know what's right and she would do what's right.
Eve was decived...Adam was the one who actually chose to disobey God, no?
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
But they had no reason to question Gods authority until Satan came along.
Which is why this drama has continued for so long. We've seen the fruits of living outside of God's will...it's not pretty. His creation, in it's intended state, was as close to perfection as physical beings can get. He is not a monster who would create drones that cannot defy His will...He gave us the choice, and we acted upon it (foolishly...but freely).
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Acctually i agree with him and i believe it just serves to prove my point further...
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
I'll try and explain it.
As I see it, Adam and Eve were created without sin in them. They were given perfect health and perfect bodies with the gift of living forever on an Earth designed for their comfort. They still had human traits like free will, but they had no fear, no hatred, or any other quirks that come along with them. As a simple test of obedience all they had to do was not eat the fruit of one tree. Seeing as it was a test they must have had the option of disobeying God, right? But they had no reason to question Gods authority until Satan came along.
Right so they were given a test and failed proving themselves imperfect. They may have had perfect health etc... but as you say they were given a test and they failed. This really seems like a debate over semantics and all I'm getting out of it is confusion as to how you define perfection.
Adam and Eve had the abbility to sin as well as the ability not to sin. If they were perfect they would have chosen the the latter rather than the former.
Quote:
klinton said:
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
But they had no reason to question Gods authority until Satan came along.
Which is why this drama has continued for so long. We've seen the fruits of living outside of God's will...it's not pretty. His creation, in it's intended state, was as close to perfection as physical beings can get. He is not a monster who would create drones that cannot defy His will...He gave us the choice, and we acted upon it (foolishly...but freely).
agreed although I would add that in heaven mankind will reach the perfection of full sanctification.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Right so they were given a test and failed proving themselves imperfect. They may have had perfect health etc... but as you say they were given a test and they failed. This really seems like a debate over semantics and all I'm getting out of it is confusion as to how you define perfection.
Adam and Eve had the abbility to sin as well as the ability not to sin. If they were perfect they would have chosen the the latter rather than the former.
Eh. This sounds very slippery to me. I think you guys should seperate terms because it seems you're confusing "pure" with "fallible".
God could have just destroyed Adam and Eve and started over, but Satan raised a point. Who has a right to decide for themselves what is right or wrong? God, or man? God knew that man could not and set the prophecy of the messiah in motion to save mankind from sin.
God created humans and his angels to be perfect, in his image, and he gave us the choice to obey him or disobey him but no one ever had reason to. Satan became jealous of God because he wanted the type of veneration and power God had, and so convinced the first humans to join him. Satan, Adam, and Eve all chose to disobey him, however Adam and Satans rebellions were willful while Satan used tactics to fool Eve. Take this into consideration. It's a possiblity of what happened; I can't prove it but it's a possibility that would fit in with Satans objective. What if Satan made the snake take a bite of the fruit? Nothing happened to the snake. It was still alive. So Eve reasoned it was safe to eat the fruit, and so she did. Then she took the fruit to Adam and told him everything. Adam knew it was wrong to eat the fruit, but for whatever reason (fear of losing his wife that he felt a special attachment maybe?) he did. Because of that sin entered their life. Then God formally questioned them and Adam put the blame on God and his wife. Who knows what would have happened if Adam had shown remorse? Perphaps things would still be as they are, perhaps God would have allowed their children to retain perfection while Adam and Eve passed away. However, the point that Satan raised by his rebellion was a serious one and needed answered for the benefit of his creations. If his perfect creatures were drones incapable of independent thought there would be no reason to doubt Gods sovereignty. However, since he gave us the ability to reason and think he knew it was something that needed answering so nobody would ever challenge him again.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Right so they were given a test and failed proving themselves imperfect. They may have had perfect health etc... but as you say they were given a test and they failed. This really seems like a debate over semantics and all I'm getting out of it is confusion as to how you define perfection.
Adam and Eve had the abbility to sin as well as the ability not to sin. If they were perfect they would have chosen the the latter rather than the former.
Eh. This sounds very slippery to me. I think you guys should seperate terms because it seems you're confusing "pure" with "fallible".
Right, that's why I keep asking him to define what he means by "prefect" I think it could be he simply means pure, but I don't know because he hasn't answered my request for a deffinition.
Quote:
God could have just destroyed Adam and Eve and started over, but Satan raised a point. Who has a right to decide for themselves what is right or wrong? God, or man? God knew that man could not and set the prophecy of the messiah in motion to save mankind from sin.
OK, I think we've strayed very far from the original point and i don't really feel like debating the specifics of theology, but to raise the point that your vision of the events seems to have Satan making God change his mind. Not being a dispensationalist I don't think that God changes his covenants to adapt to unforseen events. I've had that debate plenty and it's not one i feel like taking up in this forum.
Well, to be honest, to me your definition of perfection seems to be humans with a drone-like hive mind.
Perfect humans are just like us but have no sickness, death, hatred, fear, etc. They would, however, have free will. maybe it's our definition of free will that's different? My definiton is absolute freedom of choice. Let me try and simplify my understanding. there's point A and point B. According to me, free will is being given the route through point A, even though point B is there but not mentioned. However, once you realize there is a route to B you have the option of taking it even though it's dangerous and you're guarenteed not to survive.
To me, your understanding of perfection is that there is only point a. You are only programmed to realize that, and to think differently is a flaw in the programing.
is that about right?
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
God could have just destroyed Adam and Eve and started over, but Satan raised a point. Who has a right to decide for themselves what is right or wrong? God, or man? God knew that man could not and set the prophecy of the messiah in motion to save mankind from sin.
OK, I think we've strayed very far from the original point and i don't really feel like debating the specifics of theology, but to raise the point that your vision of the events seems to have Satan making God change his mind. Not being a dispensationalist I don't think that God changes his covenants to adapt to unforseen events. I've had that debate plenty and it's not one i feel like taking up in this forum.
If you feel like ending the debate then I'll agree to drop it.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Well, to be honest, to me your definition of perfection seems to be humans with a drone-like hive mind.
Perfect humans are just like us but have no sickness, death, hatred, fear, etc. They would, however, have free will. maybe it's our definition of free will that's different? My definiton is absolute freedom of choice. Let me try and simplify my understanding. there's point A and point B. According to me, free will is being given the route through point A, even though point B is there but not mentioned. However, once you realize there is a route to B you have the option of taking it even though it's dangerous and you're guarenteed not to survive.
To me, your understanding of perfection is that there is only point a. You are only programmed to realize that, and to think differently is a flaw in the programing.
is that about right?
No it's not at all, but right now I can't fathom how it got so far from what I was initially trying to communicate. I think you're trying to make some point about free will that I'm not even addressing in my saying Adam and Eve were imperfect. I'm saying perfect people wouldn't sin. I also think that "perfect humans" is an oxymoron. Your view of perfection may insist on a "free will" but my deffinition is the classic one meaning without flaw.
I don't get where you think that i've ever implied that perfection = drone like hive mind. I'm not sure where this is going.
As far as dropping the debate I was mainly saying I didn't want to drift into the debate between dispensationalism and covenant theology.
and I'm rationalizing how a perfect couple could have chosen to sin. My argument rests on their choosing to disobey God after being given the option. Before Satan they had no question of Gods sovereignty.
I'm trying to understand you. I am. So you mean that in order for a human to be flawless they cannot have free will to choose their actions?
So where did Satan come from?
Quote:
PJP said:
my arse
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
and I'm rationalizing how a perfect couple could have chosen to sin. My argument rests on their choosing to disobey God after being given the option. Before Satan they had no question of Gods sovereignty.
I'm trying to understand you. I am. So you mean that in order for a human to be flawless they cannot have free will to choose their actions?
No, what I'm saying is if a person was flawless they would have the freedom to choose sin, but they wouldn't. Jesus being the perfect (no pun intended) example. He wasn't an automoton, He was as described by Scripture fully man he chose never to sin. Free Will if anything exposes out true nature it is THE TEST as it were. If Adam and Eve had no free will they may have apeared "perfect" but would have no way of demonstrating it. Jesus and Adam are our two examples both were uncorrupted with sin and both were given a choice Adam in his choice demonstrated himslf to be flawed and Jesus demonstrated Himself to be perfect.
No, the point of Jesus coming to Earth was the prove Satan a liar and show that a perfect human could stay loyal to God. Satan's not stupid because he would know that you could not tempt a perfect person if that were true. Otherwise Satan wouldn't have bothered when he tempted Jesus after 40 days on the mountain when Jesus was at his weakest.
Also Jesus is called, "the last Adam" in 1 Corinthians 15:45. That would be a wrong comparison if Adam was indeed a flawed creature.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
So where did Satan come from?
Satan was originally an Angel serving God. The name "Satan" was given to him after he rebelled against God by calling God a liar and telling Eve she wouldn't die if she ate the fruit. James gives the process that led to him sinning in James 1:14, 15. He desired to rival Gods sovereignty, and so designed to turn Eve away from God. Not only that, but his example led to other angels to fall away from God and they were given the title Demons.
Some give Satan the name, "Lucifer" which is actually a Latin translation of the Hebrew word "heh-lel" meaning "shining one".
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
No, the point of Jesus coming to Earth was the prove Satan a liar and show that a perfect human could stay loyal to God. Satan's not stupid because he would know that you could not tempt a perfect person if that were true. Otherwise Satan wouldn't have bothered when he tempted Jesus after 40 days on the mountain when Jesus was at his weakest.
Also Jesus is called, "the last Adam" in 1 Corinthians 15:45. That would be a wrong comparison if Adam was indeed a flawed creature.
First calling him the last Adam doesn't mean he was in every way teh same as Adam. It refers to the representitive nature of both Adam and Jesus, not thier perfection. Also there are many reasons Jesus came to Earth to point out one doesn't negate another, besides the PRIMARY reason for Christ coming to Earth was to live a perfect life in our place and to die for our sins (again in our place). I'm getting SO confused because here you say "Satan's not stupid because he would know that you could not tempt a perfect person if that were true." What are you saying? Let me ask this plain and simple. Is sin a flaw?
Here's the problem as i see it. Adam was without phisical defect, therefore he was phiscally "perfect" and they were uncorrupted by sin, but then they proved that there was something lacking in thier decision makeing process that revealed itself when they were tempted. A lack that was found missing in Christ when He was tempted. Christ and Adam were similar but not identical. You could say that Adam lived a perfect life PRIOR to the fall but he wasn't alltogether perfect. I still want to know how you define perfect.
i know we're going to find a fundemental area in which we dissagree, but I think right now this is more a case of we're missunderstanding each other.
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
So where did Satan come from?
Satan was originally an Angel serving God.
Where did he come from? Did God create Satan? If so, why would God create something that could (and did) rebel against him?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
Stupid Doog said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
So where did Satan come from?
Satan was originally an Angel serving God.
Where did he come from? Did God create Satan? If so, why would God create something that could (and did) rebel against him?
Yes He created satan and yes He would create something that could rebel against Him. That ones also aperant in the fact that He created man, who rebeled against Him.
I define perfection as without flaw, as you do. However, I do not believe the ability to defy God is a flaw, but is instead a characteristic of free will. God wanted our obedience to him to be our choice but since Adam and Eve chose to defy Him God took away His protection and allowed them to be flawed.
Quote:
Also there are many reasons Jesus came to Earth to point out one doesn't negate another...
You are correct and I apologize. There are many reasons, I just stated one of them.
Quote:
I define perfection as without flaw, as you do. However, I do not believe the ability to defy God is a flaw,
I'm gonna try and be carefull not to word this wrong, but the ABILITY to defy God is not a flaw, but the impulse to do so IS.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Yes He created satan and yes He would create something that could rebel against Him. That ones also aperant in the fact that He created man, who rebeled against Him.
Why? If God wanted obedience, why create things that could disobey him?
And if he's omniscient, then he should have known Adam and Eve would eat of the fruit. Why not just punish them from the outset?
The dog and the tail, my friends...
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Yes He created satan and yes He would create something that could rebel against Him. That ones also aperant in the fact that He created man, who rebeled against Him.
Why? If God wanted obedience, why create things that could disobey him?
And if he's omniscient, then he should have known Adam and Eve would eat of the fruit. Why not just punish them from the outset?
The dog and the tail, my friends...
I was going to answer your questions, but the last comment suggests to me that you could really care less, so I'll save myself the time.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I'm gonna try and be carefull not to word this wrong, but the ABILITY to defy God is not a flaw, but the impulse to do so IS.
It wasn't an impulisive action, though. Both of them had thought it out and still chose to do so. I will agree though that the impulse to defy God is a flaw.
I think a better word would be "fallibility". Free will isn't a flaw.
i think we may all be near a consenus, tell me if we all agree on the following statement (Jim can intergect with something about the trivility of it all and dogs and tails and whatnot
)
The ability to defy God is not a flaw, but the decision to do so is.
Not the decision itself. The act maybe.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Not the decision itself. The act maybe.
but the decision is an act. Like Jesus said "If you lust after a woman you commit adultry in your heart".
If we were not flawed we would not lean towards sin, but to rightousness.
Deciding something in and of itself is not bad. It's the intent behind the decision that creates flaws in a person's righteousness.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I was going to answer your questions, but the last comment suggests to me that you could really care less, so I'll save myself the time.
Your answers will be no better and no worse than anybody else's.
I do care about the answers to these questions, but frankly, I'm convinced we're not going to get them. You're trying to figure out God based on ancient written text. You're trying to lose human logic to answer the illogical (God wants obedience but he creates things that can disobey...He's the creator of All, and is All Good, yet the evil of Satan exists and is permitted to exist).
You want to figure out what God was thinking? Science is the best way to get that done. If you understand how the Universe operates physically, chemically, and biologically, then you've figured out what God was thinking.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Deciding something in and of itself is not bad. It's the intent behind the decision that creates flaws in a person's righteousness.
So was Jesus wrong?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I was going to answer your questions, but the last comment suggests to me that you could really care less, so I'll save myself the time.
Your answers will be no better and no worse than anybody else's.
I do care about the answers to these questions, but frankly, I'm convinced we're not going to get them. You're trying to figure out God based on ancient written text. You're trying to lose human logic to answer the illogical (God wants obedience but he creates things that can disobey...He's the creator of All, and is All Good, yet the evil of Satan exists and is permitted to exist).
You want to figure out what God was thinking? Science is the best way to get that done. If you understand how the Universe operates physically, chemically, and biologically, then you've figured out what God was thinking.
OK, if that's what you want to believe, more powere to you, but there is an answer and there's nothing illogical about it.
Then tell me how an all-Good God creates evil and permits its continued existence. Why did he allow Adam and Eve to "fall" in the first place?
Please, try making sense of the story of the Garden of Eden.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Then tell me how an all-Good God creates evil and permits its continued existence. Why did he allow Adam and Eve to "fall" in the first place?
Please, try making sense of the story of the Garden of Eden.
I've been asked that question before and 9 out of 10 times I answer it, but it's not a short answer and do you really care? If I gave you a satifactory answer would it change you in any way? would your view of Cristianity be radically different?
"The dog and the tail, my friends..."
I obviously cannot compel you. If you wish to try to address the question, that's cool.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
i think we may all be near a consenus, tell me if we all agree on the following statement (Jim can intergect with something about the trivility of it all and dogs and tails and whatnot )
The ability to defy God is not a flaw, but the decision to do so is.
I wish I could answer this question in such a black and white way, but I can't. If somebody decides to defy God, then I guess the act and the decision are kind of interwoven, no? However, I don't think the decision was flawed as in it was caused by a defect. They were told not to eat the fruit and they had no reason to until Satan gave them another option and convinced them that was better. It wasn't like they just one day decided to do it, it required Satan to put the desire into their hearts.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Yes He created satan and yes He would create something that could rebel against Him. That ones also aperant in the fact that He created man, who rebeled against Him.
Why? If God wanted obedience, why create things that could disobey him?
God wants willful obedience. Obedience because we want to. Obedience because we love God. A God who can do anything hardly needs robots to do His work for Him.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
[God wants willful obedience. Obedience because we want to. Obedience because we love God. A God who can do anything hardly needs robots to do His work for Him.
Then, again, if he's omni-powerful, why not create beings bestowed with the will to obey him? You said it yourself, He can do *anything*.
And, using your own words, why does a God "who can do anything" need anybody else anyway, obedient or otherwise?
And if A & E ate of the tree of knowledge...so what? Can anybody explain why it was so bad for Adam and Eve to have this knowledge?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Then, again, if he's omni-powerful, why not create beings bestowed with the will to obey him? You said it yourself, He can do *anything*.
Why? What perpose could that possibly serve? He's not a dictator. He told us what we need to do...and left the choice up to us. We are compelled to oblidge his will (what you may call instict...such as murder is wrong) but not obligated to do so...The results of our choices are the burdens we carry. The wieght of that load depends on our actions.
Doesn't answer the question, though.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Doesn't answer the question, though.
But it does.
It does not answer WHY God would do any of that.
Trying to unwrap the Garden of Eden story and make it make sense with human logic is the dog chasing the tail.
Is there something so wrong with accepting that it's apocryphal?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
It does not answer WHY God would do any of that.
Trying to unwrap the Garden of Eden story and make it make sense with human logic is the dog chasing the tail.
Is there something so wrong with accepting that it's apocryphal?
You are expecting an answer that says 'God should have made everyone a subservient bitch....because he could!'....no? He is not like that. We (including Satan) were given a life. He gave us the approriate guidelines for living that life...but demanded nothing. Would you expect anything less from a perfect being? Is fascism perfection in your eyes?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
And if A & E ate of the tree of knowledge...so what? Can anybody explain why it was so bad for Adam and Eve to have this knowledge?
The tree of knowledge is of good and evil. A&E ate from the tree and knew good from bad and THEN had a choice. It was forbidden that they eat from it so that they would be obedient to god in all ways - but since the tree was THERE and unprotected it WAS willful obediance. They could disobey god if they really wanted to.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
It does not answer WHY God would do any of that.
Trying to unwrap the Garden of Eden story and make it make sense with human logic is the dog chasing the tail.
Is there something so wrong with accepting that it's apocryphal?
The answer is acctually quite curt..."because He wanted to" we can go back and forth and debate the specifics, but understanding isn't necessary to it being so. Just because we don't understand or won't accept God's reasons for doing something. I don't really understand fully why God has done every thing he's done, but I'm not so proud as to assume He required my understanding in order to do what he does "How is the vessel to say to the potter, 'why have you made me thus?'" At teh same respect all this brow beating seems less like an attemp for you to gain understanding (you've repeated questions that were answered for you in the post above) and for some reason it seems an attempt to get us Christians to accept the Book of Gebisis as apocraphal. Why is that I wonder?
you're very defensive for someone who believes so absolutely.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
but I'm not so proud as to assume He required my understanding in order to do what he does "How is the vessel to say to the potter, 'why have you made me thus?'"
The answer then is, as I thought it would be, that we humans simply have to accept on faith that God has His purposes. Which, to my way of thinking, means you should stop trying to make sense of the Garden of Eden story.
The "potter and vessel" metaphor doesn't fly because the potter doesn't imbue the vessel with any sense of self, awarness, perception, and an ability to question its existence.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you're very defensive for someone who believes so absolutely.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
you're very defensive for someone who believes so absolutely.
Ok, I love the fact that r3x in usual style decided to turn this personal, but I'll bite... how exactly am I being "defensive". I mean i am deending my faith against critisims, but this IS a discussion and I thought a little bit of an answer is better that a "f**k you". So please since you both want to make this personal I guess, please tell me how I'm being overly defensive.
Never mind.... It just makes you guys feel better somtimes by justifying your position by putting others down. This, Jim, is why my first instict was to not indulge you in your questions, because I knew it would come to this, but I thought for a second you may have had a motive other than bull baiting.
I enjoyed the conversation with SD, but I should have stuck with my 1st assumption that you weren't really interested in the topic at hand, but rather to try and show how "stupid" us Christians are.... wich you did. It was foolish for me to try and engage you in this discussion.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:Ok, I love the fact that r3x in usual style decided to turn this personal, but I'll bite... how exactly am I being "defensive". I mean i am deending my faith against critisims, but this IS a discussion and I thought a little bit of an answer is better that a "f**k you". So please since you both want to make this personal I guess, please tell me how I'm being overly defensive.
It wasn't a personal jab at you, it was a serious question. If you are a s faithful as you say then this thread should actually make you happy. You're defending your faith and reaffirming it all and not backing down from what you feel is right.
That's the way I see it. We'll disagree about religion all day, but you hold on to what you believe.
Don't take this so personally. I don't know you and you don't know me. All we know is what is typed on a messageboard.
I can do what ever I want. Now stop talking about me and go do something with your lives.
lower case 'g'?
must be one of the Greek gods.
the Judeo-Christian god spells his name with a big G.
That burning sensation you get when you pee is going to get a lot worse very soon.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:Ok, I love the fact that r3x in usual style decided to turn this personal, but I'll bite... how exactly am I being "defensive". I mean i am deending my faith against critisims, but this IS a discussion and I thought a little bit of an answer is better that a "f**k you". So please since you both want to make this personal I guess, please tell me how I'm being overly defensive.
It wasn't a personal jab at you, it was a serious question. If you are a s faithful as you say then this thread should actually make you happy. You're defending your faith and reaffirming it all and not backing down from what you feel is right.
That's the way I see it. We'll disagree about religion all day, but you hold on to what you believe.
Don't take this so personally. I don't know you and you don't know me. All we know is what is typed on a messageboard.
Kind words, but that seems like the opposite of what you just said.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:Ok, I love the fact that r3x in usual style decided to turn this personal, but I'll bite... how exactly am I being "defensive". I mean i am deending my faith against critisims, but this IS a discussion and I thought a little bit of an answer is better that a "f**k you". So please since you both want to make this personal I guess, please tell me how I'm being overly defensive.
It wasn't a personal jab at you, it was a serious question. If you are a s faithful as you say then this thread should actually make you happy. You're defending your faith and reaffirming it all and not backing down from what you feel is right.
That's the way I see it. We'll disagree about religion all day, but you hold on to what you believe.
Don't take this so personally. I don't know you and you don't know me. All we know is what is typed on a messageboard.
Kind words, but that seems like the opposite of what you just said.
Jesus loves you.
So do his amigos Juan and Paco.
