The Lord's Name.

Originally posted by bbarr
How does somebody with a perfect moral perspective freely choose evil? Having a perfect moral perspective is partly constituted by having one's ethical beliefs track the moral truth. For one to have a perfect moral perspective and yet choose evil, one would have to both really believe that act A is wrong and yet choose to perform act A.

Anyway, suppose ...[text shortened]... such that God would intervene to prevent evil in the former but fail to intervene in the latter?

For one to have a perfect moral perspective and yet choose evil, one would have to both really believe that act A is wrong and yet choose to perform act A.

Yes. It would be a collision of morals and personal preference, which I contend are seperate entities.

what is so different between the Heavenly and Earthly dimensions such that God would intervene to prevent evil in the former but fail to intervene in the latter?

Good question. Since I can't really grasp the heavenly dimension, I don't know. Although from a Christian perspective, I believe God will eventually intervene, just in His time.

Originally posted by Halitose
I actually feel the same way about it. I just use more/less technical jargon such as conversion, spiritual growth etc.

lol you call that technical ? try banded knots , loops and manifolds. with a little hetrodyning tosses in for good measure.

edit and still type like a decendant of apes.

Originally posted by Halitose
Where did I concede that God knows what decisions man will make? Stop ranting on about something I never said.

Are you saying that God should not create somebody because of the choices that person will make?

I thought it was implicitly assumed in this question. Moreover you never objected to this assumption until it proved unreasonable.

Besides that's not the song and dance you were giving in the "Predestination" thread a couple weeks ago. You insisted that God is omniscient and when asked how God's knowing our decisions can be consistent with free will you do not claim that God does not know all our actions before they occur. Instead you said,
"Just because God might know about something, don't mean we didn't choose it and God didn't nudge in the right direction..."

I guess you'll use the word "might" to twist out of this, but I detect that you kinda make this crap up as you go.

I'd also point out that since your god created free will, he's not totally off the hook. No matter how you spin, God is ultimately responsible for the outcome of his creation.

While you try to harmonize the combination of free will in heaven and no possibility of evil in heaven. I'd like you to remain consistent with what you wrote earlier

1. If God created man truly seperate and free to choose his own actions, then that very creative act allows the possibility of circumstances which God deems unacceptable.

2. These cirsumstances deemed unacceptible by God are called evil.

3. Hence, if anything other than God exists, then the possibility of evil must also exist.

Originally posted by telerion
[b]Are you saying that God should not create somebody because of the choices that person will make?

I thought it was implicitly assumed in this question. Moreover you never objected to this assumption until it proved unreasonable.

Besides that's not the song and dance you were giving in the "Predestination" thread a couple weeks ago. You i ...[text shortened]... he hook. No matter how you spin, God is ultimately responsible for the outcome of his creation.[/b]

I thought it was implicitly assumed in this question. Moreover you never objected to this assumption until it proved unreasonable.

True.

Besides that's not the song and dance you were giving in the "Predestination" thread a couple weeks ago. You insisted that God is omniscient and when asked how God's knowing our decisions can be consistent with free will you do not claim that God does not know all our actions before they occur. Instead you said,
"Just because God might know about something, don't mean we didn't choose it and God didn't nudge in the right direction..."

I guess you'll use the word "might" to twist out of this,

True.

but I detect that you kinda make this crap up as you go.

If you call giving something a lot of thought, "making up cr@p", then guilty as charged.

Like you have everything perfectly figured out.

I'd also point out that since your god created free will, he's not totally off the hook. No matter how you spin, God is ultimately responsible for the outcome of his creation.

Just like you would be ultimately responsible if I were to pervert and twist your words in a newspaper article.

Originally posted by telerion
While you try to harmonize the combination of free will in heaven and no possibility of evil in heaven. I'd like you to remain consistent with what you wrote earlier

[b]1. If God created man truly seperate and free to choose his own actions, then that very creative act allows the possibility of circumstances which God deems unacceptable.

2. These c ...[text shortened]...
3. Hence, if anything other than God exists, then the possibility of evil must also exist. [/b]

1. If God created man truly seperate and free to choose his own actions, then that very creative act allows the possibility of circumstances which God deems unacceptable.

2. These cirsumstances deemed unacceptible by God are called evil.

3. Hence, if anything other than God exists, then the possibility of evil must also exist.

Great. Let me add:

4. God is the personification of perfect love, perfect holiness and perfect justice.

5. Evil is a violation of God's Holiness and therefore fall under His perfect Justice.

Originally posted by frogstomp
lol you call that technical ? try banded knots , loops and manifolds. with a little hetrodyning tosses in for good measure.

edit and still type like a decendant of apes.

LOL. In my case, I'd call "a torus knot primitive with a displacement noise modifier" technical.

P.S. I do a little 3D Animation as an optional extra.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]1. If God created man truly seperate and free to choose his own actions, then that very creative act allows the possibility of circumstances which God deems unacceptable.

2. These cirsumstances deemed unacceptible by God are called evil.

3. Hence, if anything other than God exists, then the possibility of evil must also exist.

Great. Let ...[text shortened]... tice.

5. Evil is a violation of God's Holiness and therefore fall under His perfect Justice.[/b]

Is (4) saying anything other than that God is perfectly loving, holy and just?

Isn't the first conjunct in (5) a tautology, in your view? Does the second conjunct in (5) say anything other than that God confronts evil justly?

Originally posted by bbarr
Is (4) saying anything other than that God is perfectly loving, holy and just?

Isn't the first conjunct in (5) a tautology, in your view? Does the second conjunct in (5) mean say anything other than that God confronts evil justly?

Hmm...

4. God is perfectly loving, holy and just.
5. God confronts evil justly.

I guess, that works for me.

I bow to superior formal logic. Mine is as rusty as the 3 inch nail I use to pick my teeth.

Edit:Which also happens to double as a great disclaimer for my tautology and potential circumlocution.

Originally posted by Halitose

but I detect that you kinda make this crap up as you go.

If you call giving something a lot of thought, "making up cr@p", then guilty as charged.

Like you have everything perfectly figured out.[/b]

I certainly do not. But it seems that the properties of your god are contingent upon your position in a discussion.

Originally posted by Halitose

If you call giving something a lot of thought, "making up cr@p", then guilty as charged.

Like you have everything perfectly figured out.[/b]

I certainly do not. But it seems that the properties of your god are contingent upon your position in a discussion. I do not see you giving anything "a lot of thought." Instead I see some one who looks for an easy loophole.

Personally, I have not encountered a xtian yet who can give me a satisfactory answer for how a creator deity who has perfect foresight and omnipotence is exempt from responsibility for the outcome of his/her/its actions.

Originally posted by telerion
Originally posted by Halitose

If you call giving something a lot of thought, "making up cr@p", then guilty as charged.

Like you have everything perfectly figured out.

I certainly do not. But it seems that the properties of your god are contingent upon your position in a discussion. I do not see you giving anything "a lot of though ...[text shortened]... foresight and omnipotence is exempt from responsibility for the outcome of his/her/its actions.[/b]

I certainly do not. But it seems that the properties of your god are contingent upon your position in a discussion. I do not see you giving anything "a lot of thought." Instead I see some one who looks for an easy loophole.

Fair enough, but my point still stands.

Personally, I have not encountered a xtian yet who can give me a satisfactory answer for how a creator deity who has perfect foresight and omnipotence is exempt from responsibility for the outcome of his/her/its actions.

Responsible to whom? Muffy? Is it a prerequisite for the creator to be responsible to the created? I can't really think of an analogy which holds true here on earth. The closest one I can think of is like saying a father is responsible for the actions of his child. I'm not too convinced on that one.

We could on the otherhand argue that God is then not omnibenevolent.

I hope CB is not too miffed on our cataclysmic hijack of his thread.

Originally posted by Halitose
I certainly do not. But it seems that the properties of your god are contingent upon your position in a discussion. I do not see you giving anything "a lot of thought." Instead I see some one who looks for an easy loophole.

Fair enough, but my point still stands.

Personally, I have not encountered a xtian yet who can give me a satisfac convinced on that one.

We could on the otherhand argue that God is then not omnibenevolent.

"Responsible" here means morally responsible. What does it mean to be responisble to a person, anyway? The point is simply this: When you do something wrong, you are responsible for having acted wrongly; you are deserving of censure, etc. Whether you are impervious to punishment is immaterial.

Originally posted by bbarr
"Responsible" here means morally responsible. What does it mean to be responisble to a person, anyway? The point is simply this: When you do something wrong, you are responsible for having acted wrongly; you are deserving of censure, etc. Whether you are impervious to punishment is immaterial.

"Responsible" here means morally responsible.

My bad. I was working off responsible in the sense of:

Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.

What does it mean to be responisble to a person, anyway?

Required to render account; answerable: The cabinet is responsible to the parliament.

When you do something wrong, you are responsible for having acted wrongly; you are deserving of censure, etc. Whether you are impervious to punishment is immaterial.

Okay. I guess you can say God is responsible for giving people free will and is therefore responsible for the actions caused by free will. So, the problem is.....?

Originally posted by Halitose
LOL. In my case, I'd call "a torus knot primitive with a displacement noise modifier" technical.

P.S. I do a little 3D Animation as an optional extra.

I mostly stick with handcoding vrml2 and a little emac and java script. and since that has limited matrix resolution I can't construct anything higher than 3D ,,,but there is software that can .lol i have seen some work done depicting SU(8) and and it looks quite tangled. The Minkowski Space of our universe is SU(4) the matrix in differential form is dX+dY+dZ-dT

so setting T to zero(infinitely small) is called Real Time in Maxwell's equations.
And that's how we experience our universe.


edit want a laff,,, I gave myself a headache writing that.