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...
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?
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.
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?
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:
Like I said, God did not want humans to become gods.
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.
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.
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.[/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.
So, you're trying to have it both ways? Still God, yet not omniscient? Sorry, it is contradictory.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.
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.sebastiansdreams said: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.Dezaad said:Are you saying that Jesus was also born with a sinful nature? If not, then my statement stands.sebastiansdreams said: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.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.
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.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.
Yes, indeedy, but this isn't the complete picture of my viewYou 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.
MENTAL STRAIGHTJACKET ALERT: DON'T QUESTION GOD VARIETY. See lines immediately preceding for details.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.
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.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.
Dezaad said: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.
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.
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.
MENTAL STRAIGHTJACKET ALERT: DON'T QUESTION GOD VARIETY.
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.
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.
God has never changed for us, we have continued to change to Him.You want your god to be palatable? Give up on trying to reform the one in the Bible, and continue making up your own.
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: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.
No, just a descendant of one. Just remember, you're made in God's image,... imagine the random hairs on him!sebastiansdreams said:Just because I am beginning to grow hair in random spots doesn't neccesarly mean that I'm a monkey does it?
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.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.
And if a man had done exactly this, would you say he exhibited godly love? I'll bet his son wouldn't think so.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
No, just a descendant of one. Just remember, you're made in God's image,... imagine the random hairs on him!
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.
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.
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.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.
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 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?
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....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.
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 manMan 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.
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.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 would argue that it is you, not I, that is wearing the mental straitjacket. Probably the one you tried to fit me with.I would argue that you haven't thought all of this through,
I won't believe something that contains contradictionsRather, it is that you don't want to choose to believe it because it suggests a change in your life
:rofl, and that is what you are unwilling or afraid to accept.
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.That is not God being malevolent, that is you being selfish and prideful.
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.You make it sound like you have no way out, and that is simply not the case.
:spin:God has never changed for us, we have continued to change to Him.
Oh, :rofl Sebastian :rofl Your attempts at sounding intellectually :rofl superior :rofl are truly amusing.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.
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.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"?
Dezaad said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 it is you, not I, that is wearing the mental straitjacket. Probably the one you tried to fit me with.
I won't believe something that contains contradictions
It provides intellectual comfort for you to believe that I am being selfish and prideful, doesn't it?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?