Questions that Christianity claims to answer

Originally posted by telerion
Would you say that the following is a fair characterization of your view: "While not perfect, man is basically good, however he has a debt to God that keeps him apart from his creator,"?

I would put it thus: The fundamental nature of Man is good, but has been wounded by original sin. This wound keeps him apart from God.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What part of Man is imperfection?

I was replying to someone else's post, but now that you bring it up. . .

There's our almost constant warfare, our selfishness that fuels our capitalist society, bigotry, corruption (especially in politics), our constant need to argue, our ability to completely disregard reality in favor of a world that suits us, we cry over stubbed toes and hair loss and then look down on those who cry over stubbed toes and hair loss. All of this without even bringing up the popularity of reality television and child porn.

Now, there's plenty of good in humanity as well, but that does not counter out imperfection.

... --- ...

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
So you could say that the main question the religion faces is what to do about our imperfection?

... --- ...

I'd say it might be: What, if anything, does God requirer of man?

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Is it GOD'S will is a will of peace. But those of his creation that have free choice HE allows them to use it. Did HE know the results of the created creatures choosing to go their own way, yes. But Lucifer and man did not have to make the choice to have their own will. Just as GOD has the Laws of obedience, HE has laws for disobedience.

The crux of it is that God prefers a world with free will and with sin than one without free will and without sin. He knowingly chose to create this world. Therefore it was His will to have this world be.

Every time you counter the Argument from Pain and Suffering with "God gave us free will [which led to sin] because he doesn't want a bunch of robots," you agree with my point.

As I've said in other places, if your God is the First Cause, then everything good and bad ultimately comes back to Him.

Originally posted by blindfaith101
Why do you say that man is basicly good? Anything apart from the Perfect will of GOD, is evil.

What was it you said a while back? Some can see but are blind? I think you were right.

Originally posted by telerion
The crux of it is that God prefers a world with free will and with sin than one without free will and without sin. He knowingly chose to create this world. Therefore it was His will to have this world be.

Every time you counter the Argument from Pain and Suffering with "God gave us free will [which led to sin] because he doesn't want a bunch of rob ...[text shortened]... es, if your God is the First Cause, then everything good and bad ultimately comes back to Him.

Telerion: "Therefore it was His will to have this world be"

Yes, let us kill Him, let's crucify Him.

Originally posted by telerion
What was it you said a while back? Some can see but are blind? I think you were right.

I believe he said 'Some can hear but are death.' [sic]

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I believe he said 'Some can hear but are death.' [sic]

Nemesio

Yes, that too.

Originally posted by thesonofsaul
I was replying to someone else's post, but now that you bring it up. . .

There's our almost constant warfare, our selfishness that fuels our capitalist society, bigotry, corruption (especially in politics), our constant need to argue, our ability to completely disregard reality in favor of a world that suits us, we cry over stubbed toes and hair lo ...[text shortened]... plenty of good in humanity as well, but that does not counter out imperfection.

... --- ...

I should have been clearer; of course, I was not claiming that Man was perfect. I was responding to this question:

So you could say that the main question the religion faces is what to do about our imperfection?

I don't see how any religion can fix any of the imperfections you mention and would argue that the way religion has been used has contributed to all of them.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I would put it thus: The fundamental nature of Man is good, but has been wounded by original sin. This wound keeps him apart from God.

"original sin" in the Genesis account is obtaining knowledge; are we wounded by knowledge in your view? Isn't the drive to obtain knowledge one of the most important parts of Man's fundamental nature? If the "wound" of knowledge keeps us apart from God, isn't that saying that our fundamental nature is incompatible with being with God? Aren't you really saying the same thing as Darfius but using nicer words?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Telerion: "Therefore it was His will to have this world be"

Yes, let us kill Him, let's crucify Him.

Ivanhoe, this isn't difficult. He knew before He created this world that it would fall and that it would be His desire in such a case to come and be crucified to save His creation. Now as long as we assume that He could create at least one other type of world, then He chose with His will to create exactly this one. You can protest the rationality of His decision all you like; it doesn't change things one bit.

Consider this question. Do you think that He chose to create a world that He didn't want to create? If yes, then why?

Please note as well that I'm not making any argument against either your god's existence or your god's character. Given the nature of my usual argumentation here, I can understand why you would initially be wary about agreeing with me.

Originally posted by telerion
... Do you think that He chose to create a world that He didn't want to create?...

If God could do the logically imposible...

Maybe God rolled dice. But even that would not work.

telerion, have you posted to the "free will" debate? It was really interesting...and then I posted...and suddenly no one's posting...enough to give me a complex.

Originally posted by no1marauder
"original sin" in the Genesis account is obtaining knowledge; are we wounded by knowledge in your view? Isn't the drive to obtain knowledge one of the most important parts of Man's fundamental nature? If the "wound" of knowledge keeps us apart from God, isn't that saying that our fundamental nature is incompatible with being with God? Aren't you really saying the same thing as Darfius but using nicer words?

Gen 2:17 :

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die.

Note from the New Jerusalem Bible:

This knowledge is a preivilege which God reserves to himself and which man, by sinning, will usurp, 3:5, 22. Hence it does not mean omniscience, which fallen creatures do not possess; nor is it moral discrimination, for unfallen man already had it and God could not refuse it to a rational being. It is the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being, see Is 5:20. The first sin was an attack on God's sovereignty, a sin of pride. This rebellion is described in concrete terms as the transgression of an express command of God for which the text uses the image of a forbidden fruit.

So, it isn't knowledge as we know it that is being referred to here; rather it is a reference to moral authority.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Gen 2:17 :

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat; for, the day you eat of that, you are doomed to die.

Note from the New Jerusalem Bible:

This knowledge is a preivilege which God ...[text shortened]... ing referred to here; rather it is a reference to moral authority.

That's an interesting interpretation, but how does it square with the account in Genesis 3? For example,

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

Does knowing that you are naked assert "the power of deciding for himself what is good and what is evil and of acting accordingly, a claim to complete moral independence by which man refuses to recognise his status as a created being"? And was God just being sarcastic in Genesis 3:22?

22 And Jehovah 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-

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's an interesting interpretation, but how does it square with the account in Genesis 3? For example,

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that tho ...[text shortened]... so of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever-

On "nakedness":

Note to Gen 3:6 from the NJB:

The arousal of lust, as first manifestation of disorder introduced into the harmony of creation.

From The New Jerome Biblical Commentary:

Their innocence lost through disobedience (2:5)