Originally posted by whodeySo why would God not want to stick his head in a fan. Our own lack of desire for your so called 'corrosive effects' are mearely a result of natural selection, so unless God evolved there is no reason to believe that he would have no such natural tendencies, unless you assume that his very existance proove his lack of suicide.
Let me put it this way. God is incapable of sin, correct? This is a possible scenerio that I have come up with. He sees all and knows all and therefore has no desire therefore to sin because of its corrosive effects. It is much the same reason I have no desire to stick my head in a fan. When man fell he did not fully envision the road it would take him. ...[text shortened]... s because man is finite and must rely on the all seeing and all knowing God to direct his paths.
Does omni postence include the ability to self destruct.
If you are outside time is self destruction possible?
Is action meaningfull outside time?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadOur own lack of desire for your so called 'corrosive effects' are mearely[sic] a result of natural selection, so unless God evolved there is no reason to believe that he would have no such natural tendencies, unless you assume that his very existance[sic] proove[sic] his lack of suicide.
So why would God not want to stick his head in a fan. Our own lack of desire for your so called 'corrosive effects' are mearely a result of natural selection, so unless God evolved there is no reason to believe that he would have no such natural tendencies, unless you assume that his very existance proove his lack of suicide.
Does omni postence include t ...[text shortened]... t.
If you are outside time is self destruction possible?
Is action meaningfull outside time?
Even if your hogwash of natural selection being the cause for our desire to live were true, you are committing the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent.
For man you reason: if A (natural selection) then B (lack of desire for "corrosive effects" ).
For God you reason: not A (natural selection) therefore not B (lack of desire for "corrosive effects" ).
Would you kindly prove that natural selection is the only means to the logical end B.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI felt Noodles had constructed a strawman in how she defined love and love's implications when she said that love [towards God] doesn't demand a choice between sinning and not sinning.
Please explain.
That's why I asked her to define love because it seemed like she was divorcing the emotion from the implied responsibility -- which would leave an eviscerated skeleton of a virtue.
Originally posted by HalitoseNow now, you KNOW that we Christians aren't allowed to use logic in here. It breaches all the stereotypes we're required to conform to. Besides, some Christians are illogical, therefore all logical people are non-Christians.
[b]Our own lack of desire for your so called 'corrosive effects' are mearely[sic] a result of natural selection, so unless God evolved there is no reason to believe that he would have no such natural tendencies, unless you assume that his very existance[sic] proove[sic] his lack of suicide.
Even if your hogwash of natural selection being the cause fo ...[text shortened]... uld you kindly prove that natural selection is the only means to the logical end B.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerGood point. Perhaps he could have done otherwise, however, there was no external compulsion to sin. If you look at the accounts of fallen creation, you will see that there was compulsion to sin due to the fact that creation is finite and incapable of seeing the totality of realilty. Lucifer, when he fell, did so without seeing the big picture and utter futility of his undertaking. He did not perceive that God was the source of all that he was and that cutting himself from that life source would mean spiritual death. Lucifer fell due to self deception as where man fell from being decieved by Lucifer. It goes back to my analogy of sticking your head in a fan. God sees the big picture and knows that this is not desirable. Conversely, his creation may not see that they are sticking their head in a fan when they decide to sin or do not perceive its consequences. This is why faith in God was, is, and will continue to be a requirement by God with his creation. He is our eyes and ears to see past what we are incapable of seeing and hearing. Do you agree?
(Up)on what you mean by "free will" - in the sense of "without external compulsion" or "could have done otherwise"?
Originally posted by whodeyFWIW:
Good point. Perhaps he could have done otherwise, however, there was no external compulsion to sin. If you look at the accounts of fallen creation, you will see that there was compulsion to sin due to the fact that creation is finite and incapable of seeing the totality of realilty. Lucifer, when he fell, did so without seeing the big picture and utter fut ...[text shortened]... He is our eyes and ears to see past what we are incapable of seeing and hearing. Do you agree?
1. I think that God cannot do otherwise than He does/did - so He does not have free will in the "libertarian" sense. What He does, however, is in accordance with His will/desires, so he does have free will in the "compatibilist" sense.
2. While Luther is not all-knowing, IMO he does know the utter futility of his undertaking. I think it's just a question of "let's see how many I can take down with me" for him.