Originally posted by BadwaterBack off, Kiddo. I was speaking for myself--and the answer WOULD INDEED be sufficient FOR ME . If it's not good enough for you and your Dad, that y'all's problem.
No, it wouldn't. It didn't work with my dad and it won't work with me.
Besides, Jesus was very good at explaining why; otherwise, you wouldn't have parables.
3 edits
-Removed-ummm try as i will i cannot find this verse or the reference to trees. yes there is a miraculous event in which Christ healed a man, born blind from his birth, perhaps you can point the one about trees out, perhaps its a rather loose translation, but i cannot find it.
the one where he heals the man born blind from birth is when he makes a clay paste from the saliva and ground and smears it on the mans eyes, thus breaking several Pharisaical laws, like working on a sabbath by making clay and putting a remedy on to a non life threatening condition on the sabbath, had it been wine it may have been construed as being washing, but as it was, it constituted work and therefore incurred the wrath of the pharisees, anyhow, to test the mans faith he requests him to go off and wash in the pool of siloam, which he does and comes back seeing. note that the correct translation is that he recovered sight, not that the organs of sight did not exist, just that they did not function until Christ miraculously healed them. the result is that the man comes to the correct conclusion with regard to Christ, namely that he is a prophet and receiving power and authority from God himself.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettSo you would set it up so that people would not choose evil. In effect, they would do your bidding because you would not choose evil so as to run things amuk. So where is free will? Where is love?
If I were god I would set things up so I didn't need to destroy everything and start all over again. I think that as a god I would be expected to create things right the first time.[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyPerhaps rwingett would simply have not included any possibilities for evil in the existential choice-set. Choice (what you call “free will” ) is exercised among perceived options; “free will” is just the ability to choose among available options.
So you would set it up so that people would not choose evil. In effect, they would do your bidding because you would not choose evil so as to run things amuk. So where is free will? Where is love?
The fact that I cannot fly by simply waving my hands does not restrict my free will; it is simply not an option in the existential choice-set.
Similarly, the fact that I have no urge whatsoever to torture small children, does not restrict my free will; it is simply not in my perceived choice-set. Perhaps rwingett would’ve prevented such things from ever being part of the perceived choice-set (say, by instilling the same high level of disgust that I feel in even considering such things). Free will could simply be exercised among those (non-wicked) things in the available choice-set, without being any less free.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdBut not providing choices for evil in the existential choice-set would not have been a "risk" for rwingett. In other words, he would control their choices to the extent that they could not choose "evil". In doing so, assuming rwingett was "holy" and without "sin", he would ensure that his creation would not challenge him or his "holiness"/perfect will. In effect, he would control their very ability to reject him because the only way to reject him would be to choose sin or go against his perfect plan. In such a scenario, the relationship between God and his creation would be one of control, not love. It would be equivalent to playing tic tac toe with himself.
Perhaps rwingett would simply have not included any possibilities for evil in the existential choice-set. Choice (what you call “free will” ) is exercised among perceived options; “free will” is just the ability to choose among available options.
The fact that I cannot fly by simply waving my hands does not restrict my free will; it is simply not an op ...[text shortened]... rcised among those (non-wicked) things in the available choice-set, without being any less free.
In ANY loving relationship, there is a risk of rejection. There is a risk of pain and suffering. In fact, I would call "sin" the direct result of the pain and suffering in todays world. I guess the question is, is love worth it?
Originally posted by SwissGambitActually, there is an interesting period in Biblical prophesy called the 1000 year reign which will begin once the Messiah returns once again. However, things go awry once more at the end of this reign as sin takes one more stand.
Do you believe that the saved will eventually go to heaven and live forever there? And never sin? If so, what happens to their free will in heaven? Are they just a bunch of robots at that point?
There is a profound difference between knowing what will happen and controlling what will happen. Of course, the question must be asked how can an all powerful and all knowing God not control everything? Then again, can an all powerful and all knowing God also CHOOSE not to control ones free will despite knowing what it will be?
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyIn other words, he would control their choices to the extent that they could not choose "evil".
But not providing choices for evil in the existential choice-set would not have been a "risk" for rwingett. In other words, he would control their choices to the extent that they could not choose "evil". In doing so, assuming rwingett was "holy" and without "sin", he would ensure that his creation would not challenge him or his "holiness"/perfect will. In the pain and suffering in todays world. I guess the question is, is love worth it?
God has “controlled” our choice-sets by anything that is impossible for us to do. Further, some of us have our choices “controlled” by the strong reaction of disgust at the thought of certain activities.
In effect, he would control their very ability to reject him because the only way to reject him would be to choose sin or go against his perfect plan.
This makes no sense. For one thing, if his “plan” had been perfect, it would’ve worked—unless his perfect plan includes such things as rejection, error, failure and sin. To say that he has a plan for reparation built in is no argument: we repair what has failed, so the need for repair means that God’s “perfect” plan failed.
Also, the choice-set of sin that might be available to humanity if they chose to reject God’s “plan” would not have had to include such choice-options as child torture, mass murder, rape, etc. Such things could have been wired against with an innate disgust reaction. Perhaps those who rejected God’s “plan” could’ve harmed themselves, but not others. All this, while allowing for free choice to reject God’s plan.
Further, the fact that I love someone does not mean that I have to stand by and watch as they kill an innocent.
It is simply absurd to say that love and the risk of rejection have to include any and all options for causing egregious suffering.
In ANY loving relationship, there is a risk of rejection. There is a risk of pain and suffering.
No doubt. But—
(1) Who is suffering here? The rejected one, or the one who rejects? If my beloved rejects me, there is no need that I should cause her to suffer; there is no need that I punish her. Indeed, it is my very love that prohibits me from doing so—if indeed I truly love.
(2) Some might argue that God suffers, and takes the ultimate suffering on himself (e.g., on the cross). But that removes neither the suffering of those who have suffered as a result of the wickedness available in the divinely-created choice-set, nor the suffering of those suffer divine retribution and punishment.
______________________________________________
It is just the old dilemma of an omnipotent, omniscient God allowing egregious suffering. The free-will/love/rejection argument doesn’t even get off the ground—limited choice-sets are not the elimination of choice; if they are, then choice is, in fact, eliminated—since it is clear that our choices are not unlimited.
The only way out here is to limit God:
(1) God could not prevent evil and suffering;
(2)God did not know that evil and suffering would result from how he set it up;
(3) God intended evil and suffering.
Originally posted by whodeyWell, this answered none of my questions. Thanks! 😛
Actually, there is an interesting period in Biblical prophesy called the 1000 year reign which will begin once the Messiah returns once again. However, things go awry once more at the end of this reign as sin takes one more stand.
There is a profound difference between knowing what will happen and controlling what will happen. Of course, the question mus ...[text shortened]... l and all knowing God also CHOOSE not to control ones free will despite knowing what it will be?
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydThen articulate yourself better. Your ineffectual use of the English language ain't on me.
Back off, Kiddo. I was speaking for myself--and the answer WOULD INDEED be sufficient [b] FOR ME . If it's not good enough for you and your Dad, that y'all's problem.[/b]
And....I'm way to old to be 'Kiddo' to you. ðŸ˜
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by whodeyOh? Why does that happen?
Actually, there is an interesting period in Biblical prophesy called the 1000 year reign which will begin once the Messiah returns once again. However, things go awry once more at the end of this reign as sin takes one more stand.
...
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat is irrational about a God who loves the people He created?
[b]What if what Jaywill—or anybody else—believes about the bible is wrong?
This is precisely why orthodoxy is so important. A person ought to know exactly what the Bible says in order to either accept or reject it on adequate grounds. Conrau will probably chide me for using his favorite word, but in this instance tradition is essen re, it doesn't matter on what rational grounds a person rejects the Savior of mankind.[/b]
That was not my question. But I do believe we’ve argued in the past about whether some of the other things you’ve ascribed to God create irrationalities when combined with the assertion that God is love…
It is the God that you describe en toto that I find irrational; not just this aspect or that. Let me emphasize those words: “the God that you describe”… I find the notion of “God as a supernatural being” to be untenable, on grounds that we have discussed often; but that does not mean that I think that such a God cannot be described in rational and consistent terms. I just don’t think that you do; I think that the God that I have seen you describe over the last couple of years is simply incoherent. And I have argued why so often that you could likely make my arguments for me from memory.
The only acceptable reason to believe in Jesus Christ is because of God's own trustworthiness.
Well, here we go again. What are the “only acceptable” reasons for believing that (your) God is trustworthy? The Bible says so? What are the “only acceptable” reasons for believing that the Bible is trustworthy on all counts? What are the “only acceptable” reasons for believing…whatever reason you name?
Are you saying that one must trust without any reason at all? That one must believe without any reason at all? That that is the “only acceptable” anti-reason? Is what God demands actually a radically unreasoning, unquestioning, blind belief? The purely gullible child, rather than the precocious, questioning child.
This believing and trusting is either reasonable or unreasonable. Period. Your God is either reasonable or unreasonable. Period. You surely think that your understanding of god is reasonable, but I do not.
___________________________________________
I think it’s possible, though unlikely, that a supernatural God-being exists (and when I use the “G-word”, that’s not how I use it). I don’t think it’s possible that your God exists. I don’t think it’s possible that such an incoherent God could be the source of a coherent cosmos.
And when one stops thinking and self-talking about this that and the other thing, in meditation, one of the things that one finds (at least I find) is coherence—coherence before all words. I also find it when I contemplate things philosophically, and—from my scientist friends—from the knowledge of science. If the cosmos were not coherent, we wouldn’t be here to ask; if the ground and source is not coherent, whence coherent manifestations? And since we are of that coherent cosmos, our consciousness is coherent with it—the grammar of our consciousness is coherent with the syntax of the cosmos, being itself an aspect of that syntax.
Mystery I accept (since I do not assume that the grammar of our consciousness is exhaustive of that larger syntax); incoherence I do not. So, there is my first line of “trust”: that observed coherence. That is one of my foundational axioms (“standards of truth” ).
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdOne of the more interesting theodicies I've heard is that god is not all-loving, or is not wholly good. It's obviously clear that the tribal Jewish god was a capricious and wrathful fellow who falls far short of moral perfection. The early christians set themselves an impossible task by appropriating the Jewish texts and trying to reconcile them with a conception of a morally perfect god of universal love. It was clear very early that this would not be a seamless transition. People like Marcion saw the problem clearly from the start. But the liturgical formalism of the orthodox sect has forever left them having to defend indefensible propositions such as this. It has left them with the Orwellian task of claiming that genocide=love. The question that I have is how they managed to bamboozle so many people for so long.
In other words, he would control their choices to the extent that they could not choose "evil".
God has “controlled” our choice-sets by anything that is impossible for us to do. Further, some of us have our choices “controlled” by the strong reaction of disgust at the thought of certain activities.
In effect, he would control their very abil il and suffering would result from how he set it up;
(3) God intended evil and suffering.