|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ramifications of omnipotence for God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
ICANT your religion is very self-centric and self-adsorbed endeavor with your complete focus on redemption theology and the potential of saving your own stinking ego. This hedging your bets, so to speak, is really a cowardly, dishonest and lazy approach to God. My stinking ego, along with my sinful nature, my inability to live a perfect life, has nothing to do with where I will spend eternity. That was settled 59 years ago when I received Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I am not hedging any bets. I am stating a fact iceage. I know my God is real. I know the new heaven and new earth are in my future because I have met God's requirements.
Adam and Eve must have been allegedly quite convinced of God existence, walking and talking with God, and yet they had free-will.
Adam and Eve were perfect humans therefore they could walk and talk with God. They knew God like you know your friends. Does you knowing your friends and being convinced of their existence affect your freewill. Neither did knowing God personally affect Adam and Eve's freewill. Even though they were convinced He existed, because they saw Him. I have not seen God as Adam and Eve was privileged too but I am just as convinced as they were that He exists. I was convinced by the hearing of the Word (the foolishness of preaching) at the calling of God the Spirit, and received Christ as my personal savior, believing by faith and making a choice to do so. Since that time God has convinced me in many ways that He exists by many wonderful things He has done in my life. Now if God had convinced me without me hearing the Word and believing by faith making a choice (exercising my freewill) Then I would not have had freewill at all.
1Cor 1:21 (KJV) For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Those who do not understand the fallacy of Pascal's wager are doomed to confuse and fool themselves. I read Pascal's wager and found this in it.
With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal attempted to demonstrate that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists. You can believe God exists not just live as if God exists and still not meet God's requirements to spend eternity with Him. Just believing God is, has nothing to do with where you spend eternity. The demons believe and tremble. To spend eternity with God you must be born again, by exercising your freewill and choose to trust Jesus Christ for salvation "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
ICANT
Why would they not have freewill. Are you saying because they walked and talked with God they had no freewill? You had stated
If He convinces you then you have no choice. sidelined writes: Since it seems to me that Adam and Eve {correct me if I am wrong} were convinced of God's existence then according to your statement they had no choice,no freewill. So when I say "you" sidelined, you can then equate yourself to Adam and Eve who were perfect human beings. You and I are far from perfect human beings. But you are partially right about the freewill of Adam and Eve. The only freewill they ever had was to choose to eat the fruit or choose not to eat the fruit. That was the only choice given to them. Today there are many more choices that can be made. First is to believe that God exists or does not exist.Second would be which God to choose. Third would be whether to put your faith in the God you chose. Fourth would be whether to obey the God of your choice. By the way for my personal observation Satan is an excuse for people to avoid their own responsibility for their actions.Indeed, I often think the same thing applies to God. I quite agree that many people say oh well the devil made me do it.As far as being able to avoid one's own responsibility for their actions that avoidance will only last until they stand before Jesus in judgment. I have not come to the conclusion that God does not exist.
You can not prove that God does not exist, but you do not believe He does exist as you can find no evidence that will convince you that He exists.
If tomorrow God could convince me otherwise, then fine, I would be convinced, sidelined, I would like to be able to tell you that God will convince you, but I can not. If you can not read the Bible and God reveal Himself to you through His Word or discuss His Word with someone and God reveal Himself to you, I am afraid you will not be convinced.
As for freewill brain studies have found the notion to be wanting I would like to point out:Benjamin Libet - Wikipedia
However, some philosophers have disputed this conclusion: "in short, the [neuronal] causes and correlates of conscious experience should not be confused with their ontology [...] the only evidence about what conscious experiences are like comes from first-person sources, which consistently suggest consciousness to be something other than or additional to neuronal activity." It is also possible to dispute the meaning of the experiments with regard to free will on a more simple methodological question: Libet asked his subjects to note the position of the dot the moment at which they became aware of making a decision. The assumption contained in the interpretation of the results, is that it took no time to note the position of the dot. Another account would be that in fact, given their instructions, subjects had to make a decision to note the position of the dot, but that this itself would take some time, and would interfere with the decision to move the wrist. I find the theory to be wanting. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
ICANT writes: I am not hedging any bets. But you are. You have intonated verbatim Pascal's wager several times here.
ICANT writes: I know my God is real. You *know* God is real based on what? Let see....
ICANT writes: I was convinced by the hearing of the Word (the foolishness of preaching) at the calling of God the Spirit, and received Christ as my personal savior, believing by faith and making a choice to do so. Since that time God has convinced me in many ways that He exists by many wonderful things He has done in my life. These are all subjective evidences. Very similar to what a Hindu or Muslim would present as evidence for their faith. Yours is only different by flavoring and cultural tinting. How did you know it was not yourself just fooling and talking to yourself.
ICANT writes: Neither did knowing God personally affect Adam and Eve's freewill. Even though they were convinced He existed, because they saw Him. But you said clearly that if God convinced us that he existed then we would have no choice. Adam and Eve were allegedly convinced but had free will.
ICANT priorly writes: If He convinces you then you have no choice. One can have undeniable and unavoidable convincing evidence for the existence of a God and still have all their free-will intact. You are being prideful and dishonest not acknowledging this error in your logic. Sidelined noted it also.
ICANT writes: Now if God had convinced me without me hearing the Word and believing by faith making a choice (exercising my freewill) Then I would not have had freewill at all. Here you go again. The story of Adam and Eve from your own religion disproves this notion. Further Judas and the Jews who crucified Christ had all the objective and physical evidence in the world yet allegedly exercised free-will! Your own holy book provides many examples counter to your often repeated statement. It seems that you are so programed to in repeating this doctrine that you are unable to rationally examine it.
ICANT writes: I read Pascal's wager and found this in it.
Pascal writes: With these possibilities, and the principles of statistics, Pascal attempted to demonstrate that the only prudent course of action is to live as if God exists. Yes but did you continue beyond that point and read the criticisms of this approach? Did you read what William James said about it...
William James writes: Surely Pascal's own personal belief in masses and holy water had far other springs; and this celebrated page of his is but an argument for others, a last desperate snatch at a weapon against the hardness of the unbelieving heart. We feel that a faith in masses and holy water adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith's reality; and if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward. By consciously making this bet or using it as an evangelical arguement to convince others based on the expectation of a reward and the fear of punishment you have robbed the very essence of a valid belief or a true faith in a religion and its god. What you have left is superstition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
brennakimi responds to me:
quote: Check the subject line: "ramifications of omnipotence for God." One of those ramifications is: Why is there evil if god can do anything? Look back to the original post: Why can't god make a universe where there is free will and obedience? If we've established that he's capable of stopping evil, then we're left wondering if he's willing to do it. If not, then he's malevolent.
quote:quote: Care to elaborate? My parents raised me. My parents quite literally gave me life. They took their own life, cut off a part, mixed the pieces together, and created me. But I don't worship them. So why worship god for the same reason?
quote:quote: You're equating a question of morality with a question of biochemistry? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3959 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
If we've established that he's capable of stopping evil, then we're left wondering if he's willing to do it. If not, then he's malevolent. of all the people to say the universe is black and white... just because you're convinced that this is a ramification of omnipotence doesn't mean it is.
Care to elaborate? My parents raised me. My parents quite literally gave me life. They took their own life, cut off a part, mixed the pieces together, and created me. But I don't worship them. So why worship god for the same reason? it isn't sufficient for you. that doesn't matter to anyone else. sufficiency is subjective. therefore, because it's not sufficient in one instance doesn't mean it can't be sufficient in others. and also, some people do worship their ancestors.
You're equating a question of morality with a question of biochemistry? our morality seems to be hardwired. our essence is biochemistry. sure. i see no problem. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
pbee responds to me:
quote:quote: Then whence cometh evil?
quote: Huh? That has nothing to do with it: Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. None of that tells us why there is evil right here, right now. Are you saying there is no evil right here, right now? That the new world is already upon us and this is precisely the way god wants things? If god is willing and is able, then why is there any evil anywhere at any time?
quote: But that contradicts the statement that god is willing and able to do away with evil. Why on earth does the devil exist if god is willing and able to do away with him? Your rationalization about god creating evil is just that: A rationalization. The text does not say that god is carrying out an experiment and, in fact, the history of Judaism doesn't support such an interpretation at all. Judaism is a monotheism: There is no god but god. He is the source of everything, including evil. "Satan," as you call him, is not the devil but rather an agent of god, as clearly described in Job. There is no concept of "the devil" in Judaism. That's why the serpent is not the devil: There isn't any devil.
quote: Well, since you're applying a Christian interpretation to Jewish texts, I would say that you're the one running around with the textual interpretations. The Old Testament was written by Jews, for Jews, and can only be understood in a Jewish context.
quote: Incorrect. I am directly stating that if god is capable of stopping evil but is not willing to do so, then that, by definition, is malevolence. It doesn't matter why he is unwilling. Not wanting to stop evil even if you can is, by definition, evil.
quote: If he could have stopped it but refused to do so, and then got pissed off and punished those who had no hope but to fail due to his refusal to assist, then yes, that is malevolence. God is capable of doing anything, yes? Then he can create a world where humans have free will but don't disobey. But, he didn't and then punishes people for using that free will to do things he doesn't like. How is that not malevolence?
quote: Then whence cometh evil?
quote: Um, have you never heard of the word, "entrapment"? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
pbee writes:
quote: Then what's the hold up? If god doesn't wait, why hasn't it happened yet? Is god unwilling? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
quote: I can only assume you're referring to this paragraph:
quote: If you would of read the entire paragraph, you could have saved two needless posts under this topic. Simply put, God does not hang over shoulders waiting for the right moment. The Great Day has been set and will be triggered when a specific set of events are met. Furthermore, It would seem as though God appointed Jesus with the authority to lead the armies against Satan and his followers. Again suggesting that God is not lingering around waiting for things to happen. In my own opinion, I would say that God used a "set it and forget it" approach to resolving Satan's wrongdoings. And why not? He is God after all... Edited by pbee, : typo's Edited by pbee, : textual adjustements
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
pbee writes:
quote: Oh, please. Suppose you have a very delicate Mhing vase. It's in a room on a somewhat rickety pedestal. You put your toddler in the room and very directly and specifically tell the child, "Don't touch." When we hear the inevitable crash and the kid crying, do we blame the kid for not obeying or do we blame the parent for being stupid enough to put the toddler in that position? After all, what did the parent think was going to happen? The ability to sin requires the ability to understand right from wrong. But Adam and Eve didn't have that ability since they hadn't eaten from the tree. Therefore, how could they possibly be said to have "sinned" by eating from the tree? Let's not forget, Adam and Eve were sinning before they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. Hint: It gets mentioned before the incident with the serpent. Hint: What was the very first thing they panic about after their eyes were opened and they became as god, knowing good and evil? You'd think it would have been eating the forbidden fruit since that was the only command they had ever been given, but for some reason something else comes immediately to mind. Were it not for god putting the Tree of Knowledge where Adam and Eve could get to it, there wouldn't have been any trouble. And since Adam and Eve were innocent (not stupid), they can't be blamed for god's mistake. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
One can have undeniable and unavoidable convincing evidence for the existence of a God and still have all their free-will intact. I have never said a person could not have all their freewill intact if they had undeniable and unavoidable convincing evidence that God existed. I did say if God convinced you or anyone you would not have freewill. God is not in the business of convincing you or anybody of anything. God has given us a book and if man messed it up to the point we can't find the truth in it, that is not God's fault. Jesus left His church and gave it the job of making disciples and teaching them the all things He had taught them. If man has messed that up to the point there is no True Church to share the gospel, that is not God's fault. But there are True Churches today that still teach the gospel that Jesus taught. I believe the Word of God has been preserved and the truth can be found. I find God's plan of salvation in Bibles that have been prepared by people that do not believe in the new birth as Jesus taught.
ICANT writes: Now if God had convinced me without me hearing the Word and believing by faith making a choice (exercising my freewill) Then I would not have had freewill at all. iceage writes: Here you go again. The story of Adam and Eve from your own religion disproves this notion. Further Judas and the Jews who crucified Christ had all the objective and physical evidence in the world yet allegedly exercised free-will! Your own holy book provides many examples counter to your often repeated statement. What has my statement concerning my freewill got to do with Adam and Eve? For what I said about Adam and Eve see: Message 146 By consciously making this bet or using it as an evangelical arguement to convince others based on the expectation of a reward and the fear of punishment You don't get it do you? It is not a bet it is a statement of fact. "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5945 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
ICANT writes: What has my statement concerning my freewill got to do with Adam and Eve? We started this whole vein of thought with your following statement...
ICANT writes: If He convinces you then you have no choice. Adam and Eve were quite convinced of God's existence. Yet they had freewill. You have not resolved this contradiction of thought. Iceage writes: By consciously making this bet (Pascal's Wager) or using it as an evangelical arguement to convince others based on the expectation of a reward and the fear of punishment
ICANT writes: You don't get it do you? It is not a bet it is a statement of fact. But it is a very flawed statement of fact. The only real statement of fact you are making is that your vision of God is a Thug. It makes a mockery of "faith". It turns faith into an extortion game based on fear and uncertainty. It is obviously one of your "evangalising tools" as you use it frequently. It makes God like some thug knocking on your door demanding money for "fire insurance". He could be bluffing and then maybe not. Should you pay him? In your case you believe it to be "Hell avoidance insurance". Second and this is important you have not thought it all the way though. Here are the possibilities that you are considering...
But wait there are other possibilities which actually seem more reasonable. Perhaps God Rewards honest courageous searching and reasoning AND punishes blind fear based self-centric faith. In other words God rewards rationally minded individuals who place honesty and ethics before blind faith and punished those who blindly cling to a faith with the express intent of "saving their skins". In which case
As Richard Carrier put it in his essay "The End of Pascal's Wager: Only Nontheists Go to Heaven"
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
ICANT
So when I say "you" sidelined, you can then equate yourself to Adam and Eve who were perfect human beings. It is hardly established that Adam and Eve even existed much less were perfect human beings. {whatever that means!} Irregardless we were dealing with the notion of free will which, unless you can explain otherwise, we will assume to mean the same thing to any party.
The only freewill they ever haed was to choose to eat the fruit or choose not to eat the fruit. That was the only choice given to them. I thought Adam had access to any thing in the Garden.If he made a choice to eat a banana{ my apologies to Ray Comfort} does this mean that he had no freewill in the matter? If so then why could God not prevent him from eating of the FOTTOGAE?
First is to believe that God exists or does not exist. Second would be which God to choose. Third would be whether to put your faith in the God you chose. Fourth would be whether to obey the God of your choice. I have no need for belief on unbelief merely evidence of God which does not exist. This is consistent with the condition of a universe in which there is no God. If you would believe God exists without evidence for the existence then you do indeed have an uphill battle to perform. However, is this a condition of an absence of God or a God that really is quite psychotic and malign?
I quite agree that many people say oh well the devil made me do it. As far as being able to avoid one's own responsibility for their actions that avoidance will only last until they stand before Jesus in judgment. Yet the bible is full of instances in which people use the name of God or jesus to justify the absolute atrocity of their actions up to and including genocide.
You can not prove that God does not exist, I cannot prove anything does not exist ,yet that is perfectly logical since a condition of existence is only based on evidence. Since there is none forthcoming from God himself then there is no contest to begin with.
but you do not believe He does exist as you can find no evidence that will convince you that He exists. I am big on that since evidence goes a long way into establishing credibility eh? Go figure.
I find the theory to be wanting. Perhaps,however, this is just the tip of the iceberg concerning brain studies and freewill. "The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss." Thomas Carlyle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Suppose you have a very delicate Mhing vase. It's in a room on a somewhat rickety pedestal. You put your toddler in the room and very directly and specifically tell the child, "Don't touch." When we hear the inevitable crash and the kid crying, do we blame the kid for not obeying or do we blame the parent for being stupid enough to put the toddler in that position? After all, what did the parent think was going to happen? The ability to sin requires the ability to understand right from wrong. But Adam and Eve didn't have that ability since they hadn't eaten from the tree. Therefore, how could they possibly be said to have "sinned" by eating from the tree? If I read correctly, you beleive that Adam and Eve were ignorant and that they rebelled against God as a result of consequences proposed by God which in turn, lead Adam and Eve into innevitable sin. As you have maintained in your arguements, such an interpretation certainly paints a grim picture of a capricious Creator. After all... why would He create man with intellectual needs only to allow him no means of fulfilling those desires without incurring a death penalty? Furthermore, Who would feel drawn to serve such a God? What many people do not know, is that this interpretation flatly contradicts the context of the Genesis. Starting with the concept that Adam and Eve were ignorant or incapable of rational decision making(such as a child). We have evidence that they had already taken in plenty of knowledge before they disobedeyed God. Their Creator, himself, was directly involved in their education. For instance, he brought animals and birds to the man for him to name them. No doubt Adam would have studied each one carefully in order to give it an appropriate name. And Eve, although created later, was also not ignorant. Since the serpent questioned her and she proved that she was educated in God’s law by disclosing the difference between right and wrong, and explaining the consequences of those actions. Eating the fruit, could have been, as simple as an act of open defiance towards God. An open refusal to obey Him." Is that not what Genesis clearly says? The scriptures confirm this viewpoint in Romains saying "By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." - So scriptureally, the original sin was indeed an act of disobedience. While a sin of disobedience may seem simple on the surface, consider its profound implications. A footnote in The New Jerusalem Bible puts it this way "It [the knowledge of good and bad] is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence... The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty." Yes, the tree of the knowledge of good and bad symbolized God’s prerogative to set the standards for man as to what is approved or what is condemned. By refusing to obey God’s law, man was calling into question God’s very right to rule over him. God justly answered the challenge by allowing man to rule himself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
pbee
Rrhain writes: Suppose you have a very delicate Mhing vase. It's in a room on a somewhat rickety pedestal. You put your toddler in the room and very directly and specifically tell the child, "Don't touch." When we hear the inevitable crash and the kid crying, do we blame the kid for not obeying or do we blame the parent for being stupid enough to put the toddler in that position? After all, what did the parent think was going to happen? The ability to sin requires the ability to understand right from wrong. But Adam and Eve didn't have that ability since they hadn't eaten from the tree. Therefore, how could they possibly be said to have "sinned" by eating from the tree? pbee writes: If I read correctly, you beleive that Adam and Eve were ignorant and that they rebelled against God as a result of consequences proposed by God which in turn, lead Adam and Eve into innevitable sin. I will attempt an answer since Rrhain and I are on the same page here.They did not rebel, they simply had no information by which to judge the consequences of the action as being right or wrong. In fact, as I recall Eve was obeying the command as she mentioned to the serpent. And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. Now God must have known what she said {being omnipotent} yet we see no praise given to her by God for this and, indeed, we also have the serpent in the picture created by God specifically to trip up Eve.Eve ,having never encountered the serpent could not know that the act was evil and in fact the death that was supposed to happen was also a lie as the serpent said. Remember the verse "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." ? It never happened. What many people do not know, is that this interpretation flatly contradicts the context of the Genesis. Starting with the concept that Adam and Eve were ignorant or incapable of rational decision making(such as a child). We have evidence that they had already taken in plenty of knowledge before they disobedeyed God. But we are not talking of knowledge but of discernment, which required the eating of the apple.
Their Creator, himself, was directly involved in their education. For instance, he brought animals and birds to the man for him to name them. No doubt Adam would have studied each one carefully in order to give it an appropriate name. And Eve, although created later, was also not ignorant. Since the serpent questioned her and she proved that she was educated in God’s law by disclosing the difference between right and wrong, and explaining the consequences of those actions. So why did God not create in her the ability to know she was being conned? Or did he just forget that because he was busy?
Eating the fruit, could have been, as simple as an act of open defiance towards God. An open refusal to obey Him." Is that not what Genesis clearly says? The scriptures confirm this viewpoint in Romains saying "By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners." - So scriptureally, the original sin was indeed an act of disobedience. That would be reading into the verses that which is not supplied.We are not told of the thoughts on the matter. Regardless God knew in advance this would happen, so why is God incapable of creating humans that do not "sin"? Does this not call into question his omnipotence? Oh really? Perhaps you would care to relay to us just what Adam named the animals so that we can see if this is correct.Disobedience punishable by death? DO you do the same thing to your children at any level of maturity? What possible threat is it to God? While a sin of disobedience may seem simple on the surface, consider its profound implications. A footnote in The New Jerusalem Bible puts it this way "It [the knowledge of good and bad] is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence... The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty." They did not decide for themselves though, since their fate was inevitable since God planned the whole thing. If God had not placed the fruit of the tree of good and evil in the garden then what would be wrong with that? It cannot be freewill since they had that before consuming the fruit. God is being an obvious idiot for such a vastly ignorant display of ineptitude when he ,by definition, had to know better.
Yes, the tree of the knowledge of good and bad symbolized God’s prerogative to set the standards for man as to what is approved or what is condemned. By refusing to obey God’s law, man was calling into question God’s very right to rule over him. God justly answered the challenge by allowing man to rule himself. What crap! In this story God provided both the temptation and the serpent when Adam and Eve were already obeying. Had God not created the nature of the serpent so that it would do such a thing {and he knew it would} then it appears that Adam and Eve would have obeyed just fine. Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pbee Member (Idle past 6058 days) Posts: 339 Joined: |
quote: There is a severe contradiction here. Where God's absolute authority over all things(omnipotence) is in question. - When God made a statement which declared that Humans and Angels had free will. We can conclude that, logistically, it is impossible for God to[look into] all things, past, current and future, and hold true to His word. If God, was true to His statement, then He would *not violate the terms of His Creations. One of the arrangements is in violation of His divine declarations. Either God lied about never lying and He lied about creating beings with absolute freedom or, He willfully chose to respect His creations privacy and allowed them to live without being compromised. I think the most obvious hurdle in this argument, is that many people cannot accept that God is capable of:
In opposition to the initial contradiction, both those conditions are logically possible without violating the terms of Gods absolute power. In the latter, God never compromises His absolute authority, since He exercises[His own]choice, while respecting His creations free developments regardless of the outcome. With respects to God. One has to wonder, what fun would there even be for an entity as powerful as God to even run predestine simulations such as our own? When we ourselves(as humans) would consider such and activity redundant and unbecoming of an intelligent being. Especially one capable of creating such a complex universe as our own. The scope of this conversation can easily transcend the boundaries of this thread and forum. Considering even a single aspect of the implications laws and absolute assurances of God, the philosophical attributes alone seem infinite!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024