|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meaning Of The Trinity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Because that would make God Schizophrenic. Ahem:
quote: ...
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
NoNukes writes:
Psalm 23 comes to mind:
Show me where the Bible describes an obligation to protect you from being eaten by a lion, and I'll be happy to use the Father metaphor to describe that relationship.quote:You might be able to weasel around the word "obligation" but I don't think you can deny that protection is expected. That's the first thing that came to my mind when NN asked, and then I also thought that there may be a counter argument that it doesn't explicitly state an obligation. I also thought of Matthew 7:
quote: Not only does it hint at an obligation, for if you ask then God will provide, but it also uses the Father-Son relationship in the explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I don't even mind if people change positions in the same thread. I dunno, man, lately you've really been coming off as a bulldog of a nitpicky pedant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You want some bro? Some more? No thanks, I've had enough already.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Arguing a position is not the same as taking a position. No, not here it isn't. Apparently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Mmhmm...
quote: quote: quote: Day in. Day out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There is One God. period. His presence is experienced through the Holy Spirit. His character comes through Jesus Christ. Phat, if you use a period and then write the word "period" after it, then you're supposed to stop typing after that. If you have additional qualifiers after that, then that is not a period, period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
One evil removed. Do we not still have free will? The question to me seems to become: How is man prevented from performing the one evil action? By restricting his will? Or not?
"All or nothing" certainly is not the only option. Given. BUT my inability to fly like Superman has not been prevented by restricting my will So how's it work in your scenario?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
New Cat's Eye writes: The question to me seems to become: How is man prevented from performing the one evil action? By restricting his will? Or not? Does it matter? It does to the question of whether or not he has free will.
Let's say it is 'by restricting his will' (I'm assuming you consider this to be a negative thing). Even if free-will is reduced to create such a place... why does such a reduction matter? Well, either the will is restricted or it isn't. After that is determined, we can move on to whether or not that matters
Is such a reduction worth preventing the heinous action? Not my call, but I'd say no.
I think the obvious answer is 'yes.' If you think the answer is 'no,' could you offer a reasonable defense in allowing the heinous action? What 'value' are we preserving in order to keep the heinous action? An unrestricted will. Take flying like superman as the example. I want to do that, but I can't. My will is free, but I am physically unable. No restriction of free will there. Now, and this is where my question comes in: an alternative would be to simply restrict my will from wanting to fly like superman - or eliminating the desire to perfrom the forbidden evil action from the human population. Is that how your scenrio would work? Because if so, there would be countless forbidden actions that are even more evil than your example that we are simply not aware of. And then the question becomes: where do you draw the arbitrary line of restriction? I think that is a dangerous and slippery slope to be going down, so my preference would be to leave the line at 'unrestricted'.
If infinite - 1 is still infinite... and there are an infinite number of ways to freely choose to "do good"... then, is free will reduced by blocking some "bad" options? That is my question to you: is the forbidden evil action prevented by restricting the will, or not? If not, how? Too, subtracting 1 evil action from an infinite number of them still leaves an infinite number of evil actions to perform, so how does your scenario even really help?
If such a situation is true, and we remove a few "bad" options... do we not still have "as-unlimited-as-before-free-will-to-do-good?" That depends on how the bad options are removed...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Can you explain what it is about an unrestricted will that's worth having for this heinous action to remain? It's the principle... because freedom. I don't want my thoughts controlled.
If I say "limiting the physical ability, but not the desire" would that end our conversation in agreement? Sort of, I'm curious how you'd envision that happening tho... And it could have ramifications for our free will, so I dunno.
I'm not positive what you're trying to get to here. But I think it's along the lines of "if we prevent 1 evil, then why not 20? Why not 'all'? Who decides? When do we stop? If that is your concern. I fully agree. Nailed it.
I just completely disagree that the solution is to "not do anything at all." I would say the solution is do a few things and look for the line. I don't disagree.
If it was only this 1 heinous action where the free will/desire was eliminated and nothing else... no slippery slope at all to consider, no "...and then" to come after. If that was it, would you agree to the limitation then? Crying wolf about slippery slopes can stop a lot of advancement.It's possible that electronic devices could lead to the destruction of all humans. Shall we stop making electronic devices because of that slippery slope? When a line needs to be drawn, I have no problems taking action far, far away from the line (at the extremes) and then discussing where (even if) an actual line needs to be drawn. I think it could be a very interesting discussion, actually. Sure, but it seems impractical. We don't have any way of doing this and speculating on why a god would or would not do it doesn't seem very productive.
But, perhaps it doesn't include the Trinity Oh yeah, and we're off-topic
Therefore: if something doesn't affect free will... and yet eliminates children being in the sex trade... why not do it? I would speculate that it goes against a principle that is more important to uphold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was mostly just weirded out by the impression of "being a robot" because of the elimination of my desire for even a single, specific terrible action. Right on. FWIW, I read this:
quote: ...as implying that good and free will cannot exist if you remove all of evil - not that removing one little bit of evil would cause the whole thing to come crashing down.
A discussion for another day, in another thread, I think. Cheers!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I replied to this message here: Message 73.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Yes, thank you for acknowledging you are creating the God you want. We all should do that...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024