• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Riddle of Epicurus

Imudman said:
You raise some interesting points I do think it's possible for God to have chosen not to know what they would do. But also, don't you remember it was the serpent who said they would become like gods? They believed a lie. Remember, God told them only that they would die if they ate of it...

Evidently, the serpent didn't lie. Have you not read the book?
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Like I said, God did not want humans to become gods. By the way, who the hell is "us"?
 
alex said:
If we created evil as you say, then we have the same power to create as a god. If they are not able or willing to create everything, then why call them a god? If that is true, then the notion that everything is created by something other than a god is feasible. If a god did not create everything and we have the power to, then how do we know a god created anything?

Woah, hold the phone here. Just because we have the ability to create things such as evil does not make us creators like God, just like the ability for us to show love does not allow us to love the way that God loves. Now, if you figure out a way to create a planet with a working ecosystem and a species, then when might begin to have this debate, otherwise, dont' fool yourself. Now, to suggest that we shouldn't call God God because we created evil instead of Him is about the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard of. You are giving a landslide of a slipery slope if you think that because God didn't create evil that He didn't create anything.

A loving father that apparently has the authority to prevent evil allows it to exist? That is not a loving father. That is a malevolent father.

Really? So you as a father would give your children absolutely no ability at all to make a wrong choice without taking reigns and prohibiting them from it? That's not love, that's control, and absolute control is not an act of love, it is an act of greed. God loves us and lets us control our lives. If you can't accept that fact then you have some maturing to do.

Parents do not have the authority to prevent evil, they are not omnipotent. They can only help assist that prevention as much as possible. If a god is omnipotent, then they have the authority to prevent it but choose not to. That makes them malevolent. If they are not omnipotent, then why call them a god?

Again, He has allowed us a choice to do what He wants or not, and He has done so out of love. You are simply not listening to my side. I have addressed this issue, and yet you keep saying the same two lines over and over and over again. I have addressed them. I have in detail explained that it is not an act of malevolence, but an act of true love for God to allow us to follow whichever path we want. You can continue to say the same thing over again, but it doesn't change the fact that you are being very close minded in your argument and are not willing to stop and look at the argument without spitting out your programmed response.
 
9TH said:
Evidently, the serpent didn't lie. Have you not read the book?

Decieved is a more appropriate term. He was using crooked persuasion, leaving out what Eve already knew, that acting upon that was evil, but like many of us, when something is presented just right, especially when it involves power, she decided to act against what God's will for her was, and she ate the apple.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Do not make the mistake that because we further gained an attribute like that of God's does not make us God. Just because I am beginning to grow hair in random spots doesn't neccesarly mean that I'm a monkey does it?

Like I said, God did not want humans to become gods.

Not necesarly. We are obviously now in no danger of becoming like God. The thing God was worried about was that we would begin to believe we were gods. And that fear is a valid one. Just look at the world now! He wanted to be remembered for who He was and what He had done. And He does deserve that.
By the way, who the hell is "us"?
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Woah, hold the phone here. Just because we have the ability to create things such as evil does not make us creators like God, just like the ability for us to show love does not allow us to love the way that God loves. Now, if you figure out a way to create a planet with a working ecosystem and a species, then when might begin to have this debate, otherwise, dont' fool yourself. Now, to suggest that we shouldn't call God God because we created evil instead of Him is about the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard of. You are giving a landslide of a slipery slope if you think that because God didn't create evil that He didn't create anything.

Really? So you as a father would give your children absolutely no ability at all to make a wrong choice without taking reigns and prohibiting them from it? That's not love, that's control, and absolute control is not an act of love, it is an act of greed. God loves us and lets us control our lives. If you can't accept that fact then you have some maturing to do.



Again, He has allowed us a choice to do what He wants or not, and He has done so out of love. You are simply not listening to my side. I have addressed this issue, and yet you keep saying the same two lines over and over and over again. I have addressed them. I have in detail explained that it is not an act of malevolence, but an act of true love for God to allow us to follow whichever path we want. You can continue to say the same thing over again, but it doesn't change the fact that you are being very close minded in your argument and are not willing to stop and look at the argument without spitting out your programmed response.

Once again, you are debating with frustration. That can only mean one thing; the replies to your posts are too logical for you to counter. You cannot disprove them so the only alternative is to be frustrated. You have yet to disprove the meaning of this thread. I repeat the same thing because you cannot disprove it. I waited for it to happen in this thread as I have in others that you have been in. I ask for proof, you cannot provide it. You take my posts and turn them into things they are not. You resort to personnal attacks which supports my theory that you are frustrated. I stopped debating the prostitution issue with you because of this and now you are in here doing the same thing again. I have tried to have reasonable debates with you but all these things tell me that you are not interested in that. You are now on ignore.
 
alex said:
Once again, you are debating with frustration. That can only mean one thing; the replies to your posts are too logical for you to counter.

I'm actually not that frustrated. I just realize that you are not wanting to hear my argument because you have already made your conclusion yet you pretend to debate anyhow.

You cannot disprove them so the only alternative is to be frustrated. You have yet to disprove the meaning of this thread. I repeat the same thing because you cannot disprove it.

There is nothing to prove. You didn't set up a scenerio in which proof was necessary. You are simply arguing that a loving God would not allow us to sin, which is a flawed argument. This is not a debate of proof, it is a debate of perception. Your perception is that if someone loves somebody that they will control their lives and not allow them any wrong choice. I argue that it is an act of love to allow someone to make their own choices in life.

I waited for it to happen in this thread as I have in others that you have been in.

So you often continue to debate one point long after that point has been shot down looking for someone to get agitated at you? That's an odd strategy, but hey, it's your life.

I ask for proof, you cannot provide it.

You haven't yet asked for any proof. And again I state, this isn't an issue of proof, it is an issue of perception.

You take my posts and turn them into things they are not. You resort to personnal attacks which supports my theory that you are frustrated. I stopped debating the prostitution issue with you because of this and now you are in here doing the same thing again.

Telling you that your are neglecting common sense isn't a personnal attack, it is meant to explain to you that your failure to understand my argument is not that my argument is lacking, but that you're willingness to understand it is hindering you from further debate.

I have tried to have reasonable debates with you but all these things tell me that you are not interested in that. You are now on ignore.[/QUOTE

You have tried reasonable debates, and realized that you couldn't keep up without repeating the same things over and over again, and so you gave up in defeat. Fair enough, but don't write that off as my problem. And frankly, as for putting me on ignore, you've been ignoring my arguments from the beginning of the debate. In fact, I'd have been amazed if you'd actually read a single post of it in full. If you choose to step out, that is of course fine. But do not pretend to do so because I am not able to hold a debate, but rather because you are unable to show your point in a debate against me.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Do you remember that He said on the cross "Why have you forsaken me?" My suggestion to you is that He did in fact seperate Himself from God and at least at that point in time was not omniscient, but a seperate part of Him, God the Father, sill remained omniscient.
So, you're trying to have it both ways? Still God, yet not omniscient? Sorry, it is contradictory.

In any case, even if at that moment he had been capable of experiencing courage, and, he may have also peed his loincloth. Were you in his head at that moment? There wasn't much he could do at that point, if he'd given up his magical powers.
sebastiansdreams said:
Dezaad said:
sebastiansdreams said:
Dezaad said:
Even aside from that, Jesus has never "walked" in any man's shoes, even according to the Bible. The Bible records that Jesus was born sinless, and that the rest of Mankind is born steeped in it.
That is not Biblical. Man is not born steeped in sin. Man will sin, because it is in his nature, but he is not born into sin.
Are you saying that Jesus was also born with a sinful nature? If not, then my statement stands.
I am saying that none of us are born in a sinful nature. I am saying that we all choose to be sinful. Jesus had the potential to be sinful, and He chose not to be.
Ummm, I'm not the one who first indicated that man had a sinful nature, you are. I merely said that if Jesus was fully human, then he also had a sinful nature.


I would argue it takes courage for a suicide bomber to fly a plane into a building. There is no uncertainty about the outcome, but none the less, it's still courage. But even still, courage is not necessarly a human strength either, therefore just because we contain it and God does not doesn't really mean anything in the scheme of things. There are plenty of qualities that God has that we do not that sets Him apart from us.
If it does take courage, then there is uncertainty about the outcome. The uncertainty is not necessarily located in the possibility of the plane not making it to its target. This is a trivial uncertainty. The uncertainty lies both in what will become of the 'soul' of the wacko, and also whether the bombing would ultimately have the desired effect. Are you saying that an Atheist person who simply flies a plane into a building for no reason at all would be considered courageous? As in the previous sections of this post, I could show that you're not keeping good track of what is said.





You are arguing that only a malevolent God would allow us not to know everything about the world, because only someone who knows everything is not at all capable to deciet.
Yes, indeedy, but this isn't the complete picture of my view
God chose not to make us omniscient. He chose to make us human, and to allow us to learn things. You suggest that makes Him malevolent, I just suggest that we are His creation and He is allowed to make us any way He likes.
MENTAL STRAIGHTJACKET ALERT: DON'T QUESTION GOD VARIETY. See lines immediately preceding for details.
No, If I have rational thinking, and I make a mistake in my pondering of god, then it is because I don't have enough information. This is not my fault, and only reinforces the fact that the god of the Bible is malevolent. But, the thing is, that it is not simply the lack of omniscience given to man that condemns Yahweh. It is that fact, combined with the evil of hell that makes him malevolent. This is where it comes together into a picture. God makes man lacking a complete set of tools to successfully avoid disobedience, creates hell to punish the most minor of infractions, and the has the nerve to act like he's done mankind a favor when he sends 'his only begotten son' to die on the cross to suage his bloodthirst.

In otherwords, you want to be ominscient like God? Funny how that's how Eve fell isn't it? God gives you a way to wipe away every sin you make, no matter what it is. You're believe that that is a pathetical tool is your own, and it is, in my opinion absolutely ridiculous.
No, I don't want to be omniscient like god. But, who could blame her in any case... I'd want to find out if god really had my best interests at heart too. But, I do have an objection. I object to a God that first creates a relatively weak being, and then having the nerve to sit in judgement of that creature, with eternal torment backing him up, just for good measure. I object strongly. If the Bible is true, then we are the victims here, not God.

You say that I am fooling myself. No, it is quite the opposite. I am choosing to see clearly what can be seen clearly, and choosing to ignore eternal threats that cannot be seen at all. They are but stories fit to entertain, but not to believe. I am NOT wasting this life on a myth.

You want your god to be palatable? Give up on trying to reform the one in the Bible, and continue making up your own.
 
The Biblical View Of Hell:

Matthew 13:49
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.​

The Plain meaning of these words is that the disobedient to God will be judged and condemned to eternal torment. A 'believer' can do mental acrobatics to wiggle out of that plain meaning, but I'd have to say that that 'believer' really doesn't like God much. Neither do I, and precisely for some of the same reasons.
 
Dezaad said:
So, you're trying to have it both ways? Still God, yet not omniscient? Sorry, it is contradictory.

I am not trying to have it either way. This is an event that has already happeend and no matter how I attempt to explain it, it happened the way it happened. My suggestion is that He sacrificed His godliness to be man, and serve as a sacrifice.

In any case, even if at that moment he had been capable of experiencing courage, and, he may have also peed his loincloth. Were you in his head at that moment? There wasn't much he could do at that point, if he'd given up his magical powers.

But there was plenty He could have done before that to lead Him down a different path wasn't there? But I agree, maybe He had sacrificed His "magical powers." Where are you going with this?

Ummm, I'm not the one who first indicated that man had a sinful nature, you are. I merely said that if Jesus was fully human, then he also had a sinful nature.

Man has a tendency to act in sin. It is not required of him, as man, but it is highly probable. Which is why Jesus was Holy (set apart), because He did not sin.

If it does take courage, then there is uncertainty about the outcome. The uncertainty is not necessarily located in the possibility of the plane not making it to its target. This is a trivial uncertainty. The uncertainty lies both in what will become of the 'soul' of the wacko, and also whether the bombing would ultimately have the desired effect. Are you saying that an Atheist person who simply flies a plane into a building for no reason at all would be considered courageous? As in the previous sections of this post, I could show that you're not keeping good track of what is said.

To the contrary, I think I follow you just fine. And in your example of an Atheist doing it for no reason, that might not be considered courageous, but if he were doing it for a cause, yet still knew the effect it would have and that it would inded be his end, then sure, I guess I could give him that he was courageous. But even still, you suggested that because God cannot be courageous that He is somehow lacking in something. But really, the very fact that He is omniscient is a trumping ability.

MENTAL STRAIGHTJACKET ALERT: DON'T QUESTION GOD VARIETY.

No, please don't get me wrong. You are more than welcome to ask Him anything you want. But, you must realize that we are in fact His creation, and it was His choice to create us however He sees fit. If you don't like that, again you are more than welcome to go to Him with it, and seek a response. If you honestly seek Him, He will answer. I am just not the person to come to with these charges, that's all I am saying. I cannot answer the intentions of God any more than I can answer for the intentions of any other person on this earth.

No, If I have rational thinking, and I make a mistake in my pondering of god, then it is because I don't have enough information. This is not my fault, and only reinforces the fact that the god of the Bible is malevolent.

I would argue that you haven't thought all of this through, because that seems to be what you are doing. Rather, it is that you don't want to choose to believe it because it suggests a change in your life, and that is what you are unwilling or afraid to accept. That is not God being malevolent, that is you being selfish and prideful.

But, the thing is, that it is not simply the lack of omniscience given to man that condemns Yahweh. It is that fact, combined with the evil of hell that makes him malevolent.

But you are more than aware of the fact that He offers salvation from Hell and a price no greater than accepting a sacrifice. You make it sound like you have no way out, and that is simply not the case.

This is where it comes together into a picture. God makes man lacking a complete set of tools to successfully avoid disobedience, creates hell to punish the most minor of infractions, and the has the nerve to act like he's done mankind a favor when he sends 'his only begotten son' to die on the cross to suage his bloodthirst.

So in other words, God has given you absolute forgiveness for anything you've ever done wrong against Him, no matter what it is. And He did so by allowing His Son to become human and suffer death so that you could be forgiven for this. And you suggest that He is malevolent? I tell you what, show me one case in history in which one man forgave another for every sin that person had ever commited, and did so by torturing his own son on behalf of the man that had committed these crimes against him. Come on. There is no love greater than that. No man has or will ever be that loving and compassionate.

No, I don't want to be omniscient like god. But, who could blame her in any case... I'd want to find out if god really had my best interests at heart too. But, I do have an objection. I object to a God that first creates a relatively weak being, and then having the nerve to sit in judgement of that creature, with eternal torment backing him up, just for good measure.

Okay, so He created a relatively weak being. But then allowed them complete forgiveness at an incredibly small cost to that person. And yet you're still not satisfied...

I object strongly. If the Bible is true, then we are the victims here, not God.

We are victims because we choose to act against God? So if you commit a crime against someone, do you also consider yourself the victim of that crime?

You say that I am fooling myself. No, it is quite the opposite. I am choosing to see clearly what can be seen clearly, and choosing to ignore eternal threats that cannot be seen at all. They are but stories fit to entertain, but not to believe. I am NOT wasting this life on a myth.

But there is not threat. It is all promise. And the promise is that you may live forever in eternity with an incredibly little cost to yourself. If they are stories fit to do nothing but entertain, then why, be chop full of so much philosophy? They are not just stories, they are philosophies. And they are truths. Furthermore, even if it was all a lie, I, and millions of others, have a life amplified by n'th degree because of our faith. Even if it all came down to a lie, at least I have a greater appreciation, a deeper love, a more humble outlook, and a more beautiful way of seeing the world than I (or they) had ever had before I found Christ.

You want your god to be palatable? Give up on trying to reform the one in the Bible, and continue making up your own.
God has never changed for us, we have continued to change to Him.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
Decieved is a more appropriate term. He was using crooked persuasion, leaving out what Eve already knew, that acting upon that was evil, but like many of us, when something is presented just right, especially when it involves power, she decided to act against what God's will for her was, and she ate the apple.
If Eve already knew it, then he needn't have mentioned it, hence, no deception. Anyway, he said they'd become as gods and that's just what the Lord said he was worried about.
sebastiansdreams said:
Just because I am beginning to grow hair in random spots doesn't neccesarly mean that I'm a monkey does it?
No, just a descendant of one. Just remember, you're made in God's image,... imagine the random hairs on him!
sebastiansdreams said:
We are obviously now in no danger of becoming like God. The thing God was worried about was that we would begin to believe we were gods. And that fear is a valid one. Just look at the world now! He wanted to be remembered for who He was and what He had done. And He does deserve that.
Funny, the only one's I see in this world who think themselves gods are the believers. We atheists just think ourselves human. We don't go around condemming people to everlasting hell.
What is an omniscient god doing with worries anyway. You would think a perfect being has nothing to worry about. Maybe's he's worried we'll all figure out that he's not so perfect.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
I tell you what, show me one case in history in which one man forgave another for every sin that person had ever commited, and did so by torturing his own son on behalf of the man that had committed these crimes against him. Come on. There is no love greater than that. No man has or will ever be that loving and compassionate.
And if a man had done exactly this, would you say he exhibited godly love? I'll bet his son wouldn't think so.
 
Dezaad said:
Matthew 13:49
49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.​


You forget the context. This passage is full of metaphorical material. The beginning of the passage (44) says: "Heaven will be like..." Now, among these discriptions, it is told that they will be thrown into "the furnace." Now, theologians, because of this context, do not suggest that there is an actual furnace, but rather that this is a place of undesired effect. And there will be waling and gnashing of teeth, just like there is here on earth today... But there is certainly no reason to think we will burn forever.

Mark 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Again, this is an abstract painting. If you were going to be literal here, you should suggest that Hell is not only a furnace that is really hot, but that it will be filled with billions upon billions of worms, as they never die and only continue to reproduce. Not to mention the fact that it does not talk about a "world" of fire, but only one fire that never goes out. So, even if you were to take this literally, it is not a place of eternal burning, but rather, it is a place where there is a fire somewhere that never goes out. Kinda like... Washington.

Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night

Now, as for Revelations, you must understand that all of Revelations is written in the abstract. Most theologians all agree that the events that take place in Revelations are not earthly happenings and they are not to be taken literally. They are metaphores, similies, exagerations and dreams. Just like no one really expects a seven headed serpant to rise from the ground, neither would we be led to believe that a person will drink a literal drink of wine that is actually wrath, nor will he be tormented with literal fire and brimstone, but rather, simply in "burning" regret over His earthly choices.

The Plain meaning of these words is that the disobedient to God will be judged and condemned to eternal torment. A 'believer' can do mental acrobatics to wiggle out of that plain meaning, but I'd have to say that that 'believer' really doesn't like God much. Neither do I, and precisely for some of the same reasons.

In otherwords, if you were a four year old, you might read this and think that bad people go to hell. But if you stopped and did some "mental acrobatics" or as some of us like to think of it: logical thinking, you would quickly understand that we deserve to be apart from God, and it is only by grace that we are allowed to enter His kingdom (as we are all guilty of disobedience equally).
You needn't like God for Him to love you none the less. But it is a sad circumstance, as He has give you so much.​
 
9TH said:
If Eve already knew it, then he needn't have mentioned it, hence, no deception. Anyway, he said they'd become as gods and that's just what the Lord said he was worried about.

Not as Gods. He said they would becoming knowledgeable of good and evil like He and the angels. You see, this is not even Him speaking to other Gods but rather to a lesser being than himself. Angels do not match His power either. All are lesser under God in this world, Just because she was becoming like God in an aspect, doesn't mean she was equal to God, do you understand the difference?

No, just a descendant of one. Just remember, you're made in God's image,... imagine the random hairs on him!

No one, not even your most ignorant Christian, believes that we actually physically look like God. Rather, to be made in His image only means that we have a soul and a conscience.

Funny, the only one's I see in this world who think themselves gods are the believers. We atheists just think ourselves human. We don't go around condemming people to everlasting hell.

Only the absolutely ridiculous think themselves worthy or able to condemn anyone to Hell. And to the contrary, atheists believe themselves to be their own God, and in a very real way, that is fooling yourself into believe that you are God.

What is an omniscient god doing with worries anyway. You would think a perfect being has nothing to worry about. Maybe's he's worried we'll all figure out that he's not so perfect.

He worries for us because He loves us. But again, He also has given us the ability to not choose to follow His path. And while that saddens Him, it also makes Him rejoice to know that those of us that have chosen to love Him, have CHOSEN to do so.
 
9TH said:
And if a man had done exactly this, would you say he exhibited godly love? I'll bet his son wouldn't think so.

I would say that He had acted in Godly love yes. You forget, the Son agreed to this and did it under His own free will and outsanding love as well.
 
see i still don't understand why this loving god would create us in the first place, when idealy, we'll comeback to him. Why does he need to make creatures, put them in this cycle on a place called earth, and then give them the goal of living life in a way to come back to him.
 
sebastiansdreams said:
I am not trying to have it either way. This is an event that has already happeend and no matter how I attempt to explain it, it happened the way it happened. My suggestion is that He sacrificed His godliness to be man, and serve as a sacrifice.
No, it is not something that has happened, it is a story that the Bible claims happened. And the story is not holding together, as I have demonstrated. When a story doesn't hold together, it cannot be something that happened. And now, in order to attempt to hold the story together, you've conceded that Jesus was no longer God in at least his last moments on the cross. That is the first time, I think, that I have heard/read a believer saying that Jesus was ever not God. While not exactly refreshing, it is... unusual.
But there was plenty He could have done before that to lead Him down a different path wasn't there? But I agree, maybe He had sacrificed His "magical powers." Where are you going with this?
We are here discussing his ability to have courage, and you were claiming he may have given up his magical powers, and thus would have to have manifested courage. But, you stated that he gave them up while on the cross. I bring up the notion that if he was already on the cross when he gave them up, then courage did not get him to the cross, and when already on the cross he may not have had courage while hanging there. There is nothing to indicate that he did, and something to indicate that he didn't. His statement there, in the very last moment has the scent of fear.
...But even still, you suggested that because God cannot be courageous that He is somehow lacking in something. But really, the very fact that He is omniscient is a trumping ability.
Yes, it is indeed, as far as raw power goes. My point is that courage trumps omniscience in the virtue department. One is a virtue, the other is not. Man can manifest this virtue, God cannot.
Man has a tendency to act in sin. It is not required of him, as man, but it is highly probable. Which is why Jesus was Holy (set apart), because He did not sin.
Which completely ignores: A) That you have stated that man has a sinful nature B) That you have stated that Jesus did not C) That you have stated that Jesus was human D) That I have made the point that he was human in the sense of significantly partaking of the human experience only if a sinful nature is a trivial difference between god and man
You must realize that we are in fact His creation, and it was His choice to create us however He sees fit. ... I cannot answer the intentions of God any more than I can answer for the intentions of any other person on this earth.
I do not recognize that we are god's creation. I am exploring whether it is logical to conclude that we are. I see contradictions. Contradictions indicate that something cannot be true. When believers are confronted with the contradictions inherent to the problem of evil, it is common for the believer to bring up the potter and the clay passage, or at least its meaning. You followed that typical path. Instead of pointing out that the potter and the clay does not address the contradictions, I chose to point out that it is simply a mental straitjacket.
I would argue that you haven't thought all of this through,
I would argue that it is you, not I, that is wearing the mental straitjacket. Probably the one you tried to fit me with.
Rather, it is that you don't want to choose to believe it because it suggests a change in your life
I won't believe something that contains contradictions
, and that is what you are unwilling or afraid to accept.
:rofl
That is not God being malevolent, that is you being selfish and prideful.
It provides intellectual comfort for you to believe that I am being selfish and prideful, doesn't it? I would claim that it is you that is afraid to accept something.
You make it sound like you have no way out, and that is simply not the case.
My point is that, 'the way out' is beside the point. If he made us inevitably disobedient (which is what I believe, and nothing you've said has moved me away from that) then he owed us the "way out". So, his 'sacrifice' is meaningless until the problem of evil is settled. But, your attempt to interject the notion of his sacrifice into a debate like this is not unexpected. It gets trotted out almost no matter what the debate is. It is quite a powerful story, from an emotional standpoint. But, when that power is emphasized where it is irrelevant to a topic, I have to conclude that the emphasizer is retreating into the envelope of ignorance powerful emotions provide, or attempting to manipulate the discussion, or both. And I offer up for further evidence of the immediately foregoing, the rest of what you said in the post I am responding to. I disclude it here for such brevity as is possible.

:spin:
God has never changed for us, we have continued to change to Him.
:spin:
 
sebastiansdreams said:
In otherwords, if you were a four year old, you might read this and think that bad people go to hell. But if you stopped and did some "mental acrobatics" or as some of us like to think of it: logical thinking, you would quickly understand that we deserve to be apart from God, and it is only by grace that we are allowed to enter His kingdom (as we are all guilty of disobedience equally).
You needn't like God for Him to love you none the less. But it is a sad circumstance, as He has give you so much.
Oh, :rofl Sebastian :rofl Your attempts at sounding intellectually :rofl superior :rofl are truly amusing.

The entire rest of your post is lesson in mental acrobatics rife with avoidance of what those metaphors you bring to the table there would indicate.

FUNACE (Referring to the place unbelievers would be sent): As a metaphor stands for what, exactly?? A walk on the beach?? In no way did I indicate that it had to be a literal furnace. Literal or not makes absolutely no difference (ie is irrelevant). Same goes for the rest. Oh oh oh, I see it there: Undesired Effect. FURNACE WITH WEEPING AND GNASHING OF TEETH = UNDESIRED EFFECT. I think I would have simply used, "Place of undesired effect", without trying to be dramatically overstated ( and I might add, deliberately confusing ). I think I'll go around using metaphors as misleading as these, and when people misunderstand my obvious intent, I'll tell them to go talk to Sebastian about how to properly understand them.

CUP OF GODS WRATH: As a metaphor refers to what?? A new cocktail being offered in all the most chic of dance clubs?

FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED: As a metaphor refers to what?? An endless summer breeze to warm your toes? Sounds good to me. I think I'd rather not be a Christian, in that case.

SMOKE OF THEIR TORMENT ASCENDETH UP FOR EVER AND EVER: Metaphor for what? John dreamt of a campfire? Well, I'll be sure to bring the MARSHMALLOWS (mental note: request marshmallows to be placed in coffin with me upon my death)

"And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.": Metaphor for what? Eternal bliss for one and peaceful sleep for the other? Fine. I'm happy with that. I doubt I would like God much, if he turned out to exist, so I'll take the dignified annihiliation route.

And on it goes from one metaphor to another.

By the way, I did not say "Literal" meaning. You're the one who set up that straw man, as a target for your ad hominem. I said "Plain" meaning. Which means the simplest reasonable interpretation. If you want to reduce the metaphors to meaninglessness, be my guest. I've always thought the Bible was meaningless, so I have no objection.
 
9TH said:
Evidently, the serpent didn't lie. Have you not read the book?
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Like I said, God did not want humans to become gods. By the way, who the hell is "us"?
It's been a few posts since you replied to mine, so I hope you remember. Anyway, I think the author of the passage had God being sarcastic when saying man had become as one of them, knowing good and evil. And facitious when talking about man putting forth his hand and taking from the tree of life. In other words, we see God exhibiting a sense of humor.

I think the entire creation story is a metaphor explaining human nature. The author is relating his understanding of it with his understanding of man's relationship to God. It's a great story, as long as you remember it was written by a person. Every subject mentioned in the story has a meaning corresponding to what the author believed actually happened. Oh, I think he had great insight, even inspiration, but the story is a metaphor.

Before I forget, you asked who "Us" is. I'm not sure, but I think that's a translation of the word elohim, which can mean us, but it can also be one of God's appelations.
 
I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I have been very busy the last little while and i wanted to have to time to give this the attention it deserves.

Dezaad said:
No, it is not something that has happened, it is a story that the Bible claims happened.

And I am seconding that story. But I'll get to that.

And the story is not holding together, as I have demonstrated. When a story doesn't hold together, it cannot be something that happened.

The story has held true for some of the greatest minds of the last twenty centuries, and yet you think you are now seeing it unravel before your eyes? Come now, surely you aren't that easily convinced. The story does hold together, it just doesn't hold together you would like it to, so you deem in untrue.

And now, in order to attempt to hold the story together, you've conceded that Jesus was no longer God in at least his last moments on the cross. That is the first time, I think, that I have heard/read a believer saying that Jesus was ever not God.

Firstly, I haven't conceeded to anything. I have only suggested that that be one possible scenerio. But, really, there are quite a few seperate possible scenerios. In fact, the one I actually tend to believe a little more convincing is that He was never "not God," but rather He simply submitted His powers during this point in time. Now, you say to this, either His is man or He is God. But the paradox of Jesus is that He was God as a man. So He was both God and man. You suggest because He might have surrendered His "super powers" during crucifixion that He was no longer God. Well, just because He has forfieted an ability, does not change His identity. If for some reason I lost my ability to write (perhaps I lost my arms) that would not change the fact that I am who I am. In ths same manner, just because Jesus chose to give up His powers, it does not change His identity. God is much more than an all powerful being. He is a loving, sacrificing, fatherly God. His identity is more than His abilities. And simply for His perfection and His love alone he is Holy compared to us as humans. So, Jesus, even without His super powers, is not only a man, but He is God and man.

While not exactly refreshing, it is... unusual.

Why? Because someone can present a few seperate possibilities of the event?

We are here discussing his ability to have courage, and you were claiming he may have given up his magical powers, and thus would have to have manifested courage

But the whole point of discussing courage was because you suggested that God was somehow not superior to men because He cannot possess courage.

But, you stated that he gave them up while on the cross.

I have suggested that is one possibility. But also, not that He gave up these powers while on the cross, but why not twenty four hours before? He could have hypothetically given them up and any time in between His capture and His crucifixion, under this hypothesis.


There is nothing to indicate that he did, and something to indicate that he didn't. His statement there, in the very last moment has the scent of fear.

Courage is an overcoming of fear. One must first have something to fear, to overcome fear.

Yes, it is indeed, as far as raw power goes. My point is that courage trumps omniscience in the virtue department. One is a virtue, the other is not.

But it is not always a virtue. In fact sometimes courage can be a harmful thing. Besides, what is it you are trying to suggest by saying that we have a virtue that God does not possess? What does that mean in the scheme of things?

Which completely ignores: A) That you have stated that man has a sinful nature

Let me, then, clarify for you what is meant by this. It is the vast tendancy of man to sin. As it is in a drunkards nature to drink, it is the tendancy of man to sin. This does not mean man is incapable of not sinning (see Ezekial), but that in incredible probability, he will.

B)That you have stated that Jesus did not

Because He was holy (which means set apart) this is one of the reasons He was set apart from us.

C) That you have stated that Jesus was human

And tempted just as we are...

D) That I have made the point that he was human in the sense of significantly partaking of the human experience only if a sinful nature is a trivial difference between god and man

Sin is neither a trivial difference between God and man, neither is it the only difference between God and man. So what is your point?

I do not recognize that we are god's creation. I am exploring whether it is logical to conclude that we are.

But it seems as though instead of taking this from the perspective of someone who is truly interested, you are taking the approach of the person who will dissregaurd all arguments I bring forward because you already have your belief and will not change that no matter what I say.

I see contradictions. Contradictions indicate that something cannot be true.

Then let me help you with those contradictions individually.

When believers are confronted with the contradictions inherent to the problem of evil, it is common for the believer to bring up the potter and the clay passage, or at least its meaning. You followed that typical path. Instead of pointing out that the potter and the clay does not address the contradictions, I chose to point out that it is simply a mental straitjacket.

Firstly, you are making generalizations. Secondly, you will never find a Christian who will be able to tell you why God created us the way He did with the rules that He did until they can personally talk to Him in a manner that would disclose that. It is no different than you asking me why Michealangelo chose to paint the Sistine Chapel the way he did. I honsetly do not have the ability to step into the psyche of God any more than I do anyone else. I could come up with a thousand different "well maybe He's..." but that would get us no where because it is all speculation of someone else's mind. But, having said all that, my inability to know the intentions of God in our creation and our boundaries does not hinder my faith that there IS a God and that He DID create us. I just don't know exactly why.

I would argue that it is you, not I, that is wearing the mental straitjacket. Probably the one you tried to fit me with.

I am free to think as I like, but I do not waste my hours attempting to get into Michealangelos head any more than I do God's.

I won't believe something that contains contradictions

I'm willing to help you work through them if that's what you want to do. But, you do realize all of history is lined with contradicting stories throughout.

It provides intellectual comfort for you to believe that I am being selfish and prideful, doesn't it?

No, it does not. In fact, some of the smartest people I know (far more intellectual than myself) are selfish and prideful. So having those to attributes does not necessarly make me an intellectual superior. In fact, there is a great possibilty that you are my intellectual superior. But that doesn't really matter a great deal to me. There will always be a bigger fish, and a smarter one. I don't tend to do well at striving for goals I know I will never accomplish.
My point is that, 'the way out' is beside the point. If he made us inevitably disobedient (which is what I believe, and nothing you've said has moved me away from that) then he owed us the "way out".

He made us in the form of Adam and Eve, unaware of how sexy sin can appear. And yet, Eve still chose to act against Him. It is our choice. It was not ineveitable, it was chosen. And it is continuasly chosen. Godliness is not impossible, it is simply unlikely.

So, his 'sacrifice' is meaningless until the problem of evil is settled.

He seems to dissagree with you. But, Biblically speaking, He will stand as Judge and Jury for you, and then you will be able to plead your case to Him.

But, your attempt to interject the notion of his sacrifice into a debate like this is not unexpected.

Because it is free forgiveness that we do not deserve.

It gets trotted out almost no matter what the debate is.

Needless to say it is important for many of us.

It is quite a powerful story, from an emotional standpoint. But, when that power is emphasized where it is irrelevant to a topic, I have to conclude that the emphasizer is retreating into the envelope of ignorance powerful emotions provide, or attempting to manipulate the discussion, or both.

You suggest He is malevolent. If God were malevolent, He would not have sent His son for a sacrifice. That is my point. Nothing more.
 
“Then, lastly, the creed of the philosophers of sages varied according to the character and knowledge of each; their relative acquaintance with the secrets of natural science, their intellectual and sectarian egotism, and their mystic or monastic tendencies, for there is a classic as well as a mediaeval monasticism. They end in losing the life of Greece in play upon words; but we owe to their early thought some of the soundest ethics, and the foundation of the best practical laws, yet known to mankind.

“Such was the general vitality of the heathen creed in its strength. Of its direct influence on conduct, it is, as I said, impossible for me to speak now; only, remember always, in endeavoring to form a judgment of it, that what of good or right the heathens did, they did looking for no reward. The purest forms of our own religion have always consisted in sacrificing less things to win greater, time to win eternity, the world to win the skies. The order, ‘Sell that thou hast,’ is not given without the promise, ‘Thou shalt have treasure in heaven;" and well for the modern Christian if he accepts the alternative as his Master left it, and does not practically read the command and promise thus: ‘Sell that thou hast in the best market, and thou shalt have treasure in eternity also.’ But the poor Greeks of the great ages expected no reward from heaven but honor, and no reward from earth but rest; though, when, on those conditions, they patiently, and proudly, fulfilled their task of the granted day, an unreasoning instinct of an immortal benediction broke from their lips in song; and they, even they, had sometimes a prophet to tell them of a land "where there is sun alike by day and alike by night, where they shall need no more to trouble the earth by strength of hands for daily bread; but the ocean breezes blow around the blessed islands, and golden flowers burn on their bright trees for evermore."

- John Ruskin, “Athena Chalinitis,” The Queen of the Air (1869)
 
Back
Top Bottom