- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by Suziannefor a situation have a perfect resolution do all involved have to think it was perfect or does the resolution only have to be perfect for the resolver?
I think I see where you're going, but I'll say yes anyways.
(did you guess right)
(ill throw in an obscure reference to canned fruit to throw you off the scent next time)
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by Suzianne1. I do not accept that premise. Why is it impossible not to sin?
1. No. But all men have sinned, except our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. Sinners cannot judge God because God has no peer, especially among sinners. All sinners have some sort of ax to grind and so are incapable of judging without bias.
3. At least Religion has a productive purpose. Worship of a righteous Creator. Comfort to the needy, sick and downtrodde ...[text shortened]... in a future free of the debilitating effects of sin. A reminder that evil should be contested.
2. Wrong. I am sinner. I judge your god to be worthless. Job done.
3. Religion has a purpose? Apart from the complete waste of time/energy
worshipping a non-existant entity those other "productive purposes" do
not require religion.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by wolfgang591. Your non-acceptance does not make it not so. Ever hear of "original sin"?
1. I do not accept that premise. Why is it impossible not to sin?
2. Wrong. I am sinner. I judge your god to be worthless. Job done.
3. Religion has a purpose? Apart from the complete waste of time/energy
worshipping a non-existant entity those other "productive purposes" do
not require religion.
2. My statement stands. Your judgment is biased. It is not fair, unbiased judgment.
3. So you meant "Organized Religion". You did not say this in your question.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieThe perfect resolution is a righteous resolution when resolved by God. It does not matter what the persons involved think of it. Of course those judged unworthy would feel wronged. Perfection is not something that seems negotiable. Is there another shoe to drop or are you only concerned with the hypothetical here?
for a situation have a perfect resolution do all involved have to think it was perfect or does the resolution only have to be perfect for the resolver?
(did you guess right)
(ill throw in an obscure reference to canned fruit to throw you off the scent next time)
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
11 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by Suzianne'it doesnt matter what we think' so what we think and feel is irrelevant to the set of conditions that god views as perfect. what then is the purpose of us conforming to gods will. we are just satisfying an equation of perfection for him, returning to a state in which he intended (which causes a bit of a perfection paradox - god is perfect yet the conditions he created are not, even to him). our return to our default pre-sin setting is not because he cares about our individual needs, he cares only about his view of perfection.
The perfect resolution is a righteous resolution when resolved by God. It does not matter what the persons involved think of it. Of course those judged unworthy would feel wronged. Perfection is not something that seems negotiable. Is there another shoe to drop or are you only concerned with the hypothetical here?
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieMan can build a perfect house or a perfect car, but will it remain perfect if not maintained?
'it doesnt matter what we think' so what we think and feel is irrelevant to the set of conditions that god views as perfect. what then is the purpose of us conforming to gods will. we are just satisfying an equation of perfection for him, returning to a state in which he intended (which causes a bit of a perfection paradox - god is perfect yet the condi ...[text shortened]... s not because he cares about our individual needs, he cares only about his view of perfection.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by Suzianne1. When you make wild statements people are unlikely to accept them as a
1. Your non-acceptance does not make it not so. Ever hear of "original sin"?
2. My statement stands. Your judgment is biased. It is not fair, unbiased judgment.
3. So you meant "Organized Religion". You did not say this in your question.
foundation for further argument.
2. Originally you said nobody could judge god. Now you are saying my judgment is unfair. Ergo you agree that I have judged god (albeit
unfairly in your eyes). I have therefore done what you previously thought
impossible. (Good - we are making progress)
3. No. Organised or disorganised; makes no difference.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59The point I believe she was trying to make was that no one has the authority to judge God. For example, in a court of law a judge and a jury are given the authority to judge others. However, even the supreme court of the land has no authority to judge God or the power to enforce a punishment or verdict.
1. When you make wild statements people are unlikely to accept them as a
foundation for further argument.
2. Originally you said nobody could judge god. Now you are saying my judgment is unfair. Ergo you agree that I have judged god (albeit
unfairly in your eyes). I have therefore done what you previously thought
impossible. (Good - we are making progress)
3. No. Organised or disorganised; makes no difference.
This does not prevent each of us from having an opinion of judgment, even without authority and the power of enforcement of a verdict.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsPrecisely, Ron.
The point I believe she was trying to make was that no one has the authority to judge God. For example, in a court of law a judge and a jury are given the authority to judge others. However, even the supreme court of the land has no authority to judge God or the power to enforce a punishment or verdict.
This does not prevent each of us from having an opinion of judgment, even without authority and the power of enforcement of a verdict.
I did have a post where I as much as said the same thing, if he wants to pick and choose from my posts I guess that's his prerogative.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by stellspalfieMy point is not to argue about what is the correct idea of perfect in everyones mind. My point is that we can make a toy or something we believe is new and perfect for what it is meant for at the time. However, over time it deteriorates with use and abuse and without maintenance it becomes no longer perfect for its purpose. God never said His creations were perfect, but He did say they were good right after creating them. That is the way we would view our new house or car at first. It does not mean we expect them to stay that way without correct effort on our part.
is it really possible to build a perfect house? can it not always be improved? does it matter what other people think of the house?
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by SuzianneDoes that mean, that if a person believes they are acting according to the will of god ,they would not consider any earthly authority as being legitimate if that earthly authority in some way violated that persons interpretation of their god's intentions?
Precisely, Ron.
I did have a post where I as much as said the same thing, if he wants to pick and choose from my posts I guess that's his prerogative.
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by OdBodNo is my answer. Suzianne may be able to explain better than I could, so I will leave that to her.
Does that mean, that if a person believes they are acting according to the will of god ,they would not consider any earthly authority as being legitimate if that earthly authority in some way violated that persons interpretation of their god's intentions?