- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@dj2becker Good deeds+good people=God exists? [
If we stay with that logic...Equation no.2: Evil deeds+Evil people=God exists??
As I understand the argument without God no absolute moral standard exists.
Evil is like a shadow. It appears only in the absence of light.
A shadow indicates that there must be light being hindered.
That's how I current;y understand how some frame the argument.
According to this formula, God is either not infallible or not invulnerable (all powerful).
I am a Christian. God is infallible but humans have the capacity to go against their conscience and God with the abuse of their free will.
Aren't you leaving OUT God's creation possessing a free will?
The free will doesn't make God not infallible.
The free will also doesn't make God not all-powerful.
The Bible says that God created a creature man, and drew a line. Man had freedom but was warned not to cross over a certain line.
The limitation was one.
And its existence meant neither the fallibility of God nor the impotence of God.
The warning to the creature with a free will did not indicate either God is not infallible or that God is not all powerful.
"And out of the ground Jehovah God caused to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for for, as well as the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." (Genesis 2:9)
And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely.
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, of it you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16,17)
Man was created neutral and innocent with the capacity to choose. The creation of God with a creature with a free will was not a creation with absolutely NO restriction of any kind.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Nov 18
There was one line in the sand, one restriction. That was concerning what to take into man's being as a source. Specifically, something called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There was the SOLE and SINGULAR restriction around this tree.
Man was neutral and innocent and even good. He was not a sinner. He was at a stage of inbetween-ness of two sources, For now let us just say the two sources were God and "the OTHER way."
The neutral man had to move from that neutral station to one side or the other. He could take in God or he could go (for now let's just say) "the OTHER way which is not of God.
This freedom in man did not render God fallible.
Nor did it render God not the all powerful.
This command rendered the first man responsible for the decision of his free will. How did it make God not infallible? How did it make God not almighty?
You are saying God's presence, or a better word maybe is His essence, His existence is causing all this morality in people.
I think God created in man a conscience. And if it is not damaged it reflects God's moral essence.
If a Creator did not bestow this conscience on man where else would you propose does it have its source?
I think this proverb can be extended to the human conscience also and not just the eye and ear of human beings.
"He who planted the ear, does He not hear?
He who formed the eye, does He not see?" (Psalm 94:9)
I think the question could extend to the moral balances in the human conscience. Does God not weigh the good and the evil? Would God not be the ultimate One to do so?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Nov 18
2 edits
Then why is this morality so misguided? Example: Terrorists believe flying planes into buildings to kill innocent people is morally right.
I am a Christian. And that evil exists indicates that something has gone wrong with humans. There is in the Bible something we call "the Fall". That is the result that came about because of the wrong choice of the first man to go "the other way".
He was polluted, corrupted, and permeated with the nature of
spiritual being who long before had pioneered rebellion against his Creator.
Man was contaminated with this evil spiritual rebel who previous to man's creation had pioneered to be a nemesis to God. Man became united with enemy of God and was constituted a sinner.
The tree of life - lead to union with God as the divine life.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil led to union with God's temporary enemy and nemesis.
In between these two sources was the created human being.
This was a triangle of God as a source, Satan as a source, and created human free will being in the middle to choose one source or the other.
Adam and Eve's responsibility was to move from the central point of the triangle to one side point or the other.
The moral ailments, sins, transgressions, innate wrong doing, selfishness, idolatry, greed, lust, pride, murder, false gods, and all other tragic corruptions of the human being are do to the bad yet free choice of the first man Adam and his wife.
The Bible says there is something gone wrong in creation and with humanity. And things are NOT as God originally designed them to be. There is this "Fall" of man. There is this tragic joining of man to God's nemesis and enemy.
That is all I'll write in this post.
I am looking at your other comments in another post.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Nov 18
Think of it this way. Freedom doesn't mean you are completely free to escape the consequences of your free choice.
I may be warned not to jump out of a window on the 10th floor of a building. Now if I exercise my free will and jump anyway, certain laws will take over.
The law of gravity will pull me down to my death below. I was free to choose to jump. I am not necessarily free though to escape the consequences of my choice.
I may decide on the way down - "I decide that I don't want to fall anymore." But the law of gravity couldn't care less. I will continue to fall unless some kind of rescue occurs.
God informed man of the consequence of the wrong choice of his free will. The human society is effected by the corruption, pollution, infestation of our beings resulting from the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race.
06 Nov 18
@sonship saidBearing in mind that we didn't evolve from a single pair of humans (meaning the Adam and Eve story shouldn't be taken literally) how could it be said that we are dealing with the consequences of 'the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race'?
Think of it this way. Freedom doesn't mean you are completely free to escape the consequences of your free choice.
I may be warned not to jump out of a window on the 10th floor of a building. Now if I exercise my free will and jump anyway, certain laws will take over.
The law of gravity will pull me down to my death below. I was free to choose to jump. I am not necessar ...[text shortened]... n of our beings resulting from the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Nov 18
Example: Terrorists believe flying planes into buildings to kill innocent people is morally right.
It doesn't necessarily follow that THIS therefore Atheism must be.
The sense of moral outrage that many people have indicates an intuitive understanding that this is wrong. There seems to be no justifiable reason for the mass murder.
The murderers thought there was though. The controversy must mean one side is closer to the ultimate truth than the other.
Difficult moral problems don't prove that no ultimate moral law exists anymore than difficult math problems prove that numbers do not exist.
Or something most people would never even consider; now, or 500 yrs ago...Introduce the Christian God to different civilizations-
It is considered now. To learn from the mistakes of the past are also considered.
and if they don't convert, genocide and bye-bye.
In the case of William Carey, a Christian missionary to India, he saved a lot of women from being burned on the funeral pile with their deceased husbands. He did this by meticulously translating not the Bible but their OWN sacred writings.
This missionary proved to the people that what their priests were demanding in burning alive widows was not a command of their sacred Sanskrit writings. I think that Christian missionary to India did a noble deed, caring enough to point out to the terrified widows and their neighbors that they had no such command to burn alive widows with their dead husbands.
This was morally righteous in their eyes. Morality in people comes from within the belief structure they were born into. When you do a good deed, you are looking to benefit or profit, even on a minuscule level. Hold the door open for a lady- your reward is hoping for a smile and she better say 'Thank you'. Anything that doesn't reward immediately, you want Him to know about it so you'll get a better seat on the bus to heaven. Why would God want us to point to His existence as the manufacturer of our morality?
These complaints are mostly caricatures.
There is no need to want God to know. God surely knows whether we want it or not.
And the salvation of the Bible is not GOING somewhere by bus or any other means. It is to be conformed to the image of Christ. Man wants to be like Christ. But he cannot without Christ's salvation.
To be like Christ is the only thing which will truly fulfill the purpose of our creation. Some people may not want God. But I think they want to be like Jesus Christ anyway.
Look here at poster ThinkOfOne. He is I think a closet atheist. But he apparently recognizes that to be truly human is to be Christ like.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Nov 18
6 edits
Bearing in mind that we didn't evolve from a single pair of humans (meaning the Adam and Eve story shouldn't be taken literally) how could it be said that we are dealing with the consequences of 'the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race'?
You know that what scientists say changes much. What you hear today may change by the time your grand kids are in college.
Don't be surprised if one day some Phd. puts out that we all DID apparently come from a first couple.
This scientific opinion of no first human parents may change.
Who ever thought we would find soft material in the bones of dinosaurs that were suppose to be sixty million years old?
Who ever thought Pluto would be demoted to no longer be called a planet?
What scientists proclaim will change often.
To me this is the more interesting issue to which I will only give a brief comment now.
how could it be said that we are dealing with the consequences of 'the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race'?
The SAME principle that became a problem to us - the disobedience of one man, God uses to save us and extend eternal redemption and eternal life to us.
The disobedience of ONE head of humanity became a misfortune.
The OBEDIENCE of a second ONE head of a new humanity becomes our eternal fortune.
God uses the same principle - a HEAD of the old humanity influencing all his offspring, and the HEAD of a new humanity influencing all His related offspring.
Christ is therefore called "the second man" and also "the last Adam".
As "the last Adam" He terminates a terrible mistake. I tried to write about this on the suicide thread and was sorely castigated for it. Maybe now you get a hint.
Christ as "the last Adam" CONCLUDED the first order.
And Christ as "the second man" initiated a new and eternal order in salvation to those who will be joined TO Him.
This matter is much covered in Romans chapter five.
The principle that worked against us God also uses to work FOR us if we would submit to believe in the Son of God, the second man, the last Adam.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
06 Nov 18
how could it be said that we are dealing with the consequences of 'the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race'?
It is not super easy for me to answer this. However what Adam did in eating brought a kind of poison into the human race.
Imagine a mother tell her child not to drink from a certain bottle of liquid. The liquid is a poison the entering into the child will make the child sick and die.
If the child disobeys she has two problems. One one hand the child has disobeyed the authority of the parent. On the other hand a foreign poisonous element has entered into the child.
When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they not only transgressed God's command. In addition they took into themselves something of a destroying poison.
They caused all human beings to be somehow attached to the evil nature of the Devil - infested, polluted, corrupted, and permeated with a foreign evil nature.
Man then need salvation from both the GUILT of sin and the POWER of sin. Jesus Christ is the answer for both problems resulting from Adam and Eve's rebellion and providing a channel into humanity for Satan.
06 Nov 18
@sonship saidNo, scientists will 'never' conclude we did actually come from one couple (perfectly evolved in a magical garden or otherwise).
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Bearing in mind that we didn't evolve from a single pair of humans (meaning the Adam and Eve story shouldn't be taken literally) how could it be said that we are dealing with the consequences of 'the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race'?
You know that what scientists say changes much. What you here today may ...[text shortened]... uses to work FOR us if we would submit to believe in the Son of God, the second man, the last Adam.
Scientific discoveries go forward, not backwards.
06 Nov 18
@sonship saidYou have separated what I asked and in doing so answering a question I did not put to you.how could it be said that we are dealing with the consequences of 'the wrong choice of the parent man and woman of the whole human race'?
It is not super easy for me to answer this. However what Adam did in eating brought a kind of poison into the human race.
Imagine a mother tell her child not to drink from a certain bottle of liquid. The liquid is ...[text shortened]... th problems resulting from Adam and Eve's rebellion and providing a channel into humanity for Satan.
My point (in its entirety before you cut it in half) was that if Adam and Eve didn't exist, how could it be argued that mankind is facing the consequences of original sin. - I have no interest in your explanation of Adam bringing a poison into the human race. I have challenged Adam's very existence!!!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
My point (in its entirety before you cut it in half) was that if Adam and Eve didn't exist, how could it be argued that mankind is facing the consequences of original sin. - I have no interest in your explanation of Adam bringing a poison into the human race. I have challenged Adam's very existence!!!
It would be hard to argue - IF they did not exist.
You don't KNOW that they didn't.
Do you know for certain that there were no two FIRST human beings?
I agree that it would be hard to talk about the fall of man without the account of Adam and Eve. I couldn't do it.
This would call for me to doubt the integrity of Christ. For He spoke of the beginning and Adam and Eve (Mark 10:6 comp. Genesis 5:2)
To me the integrity of Christ is beyond questioning.
This you may say is an argument from authority.
I would agree. The logical fallacy of an argument from authority is just that it is not rigorous.
An argument from authority does not HAVE to be incorrect.
It is just not rigorous according to some customs of logical debate.
06 Nov 18
@sonship saidYes.
Do you know for certain that there were no two FIRST human beings?
Human beings evolved into their current state. There is a plethora of evidence to substantiate this. The idea that we appeared as fully fledged human beings is a nonsense, which also renders the notion of original sin nonsensical.
06 Nov 18
@sonship
1st, thank you for explaining your point in plain English, without getting all 'biblical'.
2nd, I understand your viewpoint and it seems actually plausible instead of impossible. The triangle really got my attention. BUT, God must see us as a failed and out of control (because of free will), addition to His creation. Because we caused 'the fall', did we not? God knew this was going to happen, creating us in His own image, giving us free will and allowing us to choose whether we follow good or follow evil. He knew as soon as He did the finger snap (big bang), that we were going to muck it all up. I like to think that this is the umpteenth time He has given us to make universally good choices, and until we get it right, He will never give up on us. Now that's a God I could believe in!
06 Nov 18
@dj2becker saiddj2becker and sonship. Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Quite possibly the two most out-and-out ineducable (not to mention disingenuous) posters in the history of this forum. What follows is not another attempt at your education but simply putting some context to your continuing bad behavior.
It’s an insult to your intelligence simply because it doesn’t fit into your way of thinking. Do you believe your way of thinking the only correct way of thinking?
This way of thinking isn’t even consistent with your belief in moral relativism.
At dj2becker (aka Fetchmyjunk): apparently you still think I am a moral relativist, despite my explicitly correcting you on that numerous times, including in the thread to which I have already linked. This is not surprising given your MO, which consists of posing loaded questions and then not paying the respect of listening to any responses as you stick proverbial fingers in your ears and let the words carom off your impossibly thick skull.
At sonship (aka jaywill, aka gswilm, aka whatever other relative's handle you might be posting under at the moment): if anyone wishes to observe your mastery (or, rather, breathtakingly comprehensive lack thereof) on this particular issue, they can simply revisit this past discussion: Thread 158249. To recap it briefly, not only did you have no argument showing that objective morality necessitates God, but if anything you actually succeeded only in showing the opposite because you failed to comprehend implications of your own notion of objectivity. In response, I showed that secular ethical theories can, and regularly do, count as "objective" according to your very own definition of the term. You willfully refused to understand or acknowledge this. So not only were you argumentatively incompetent on this issue; but, worse than that, you were thoroughly disingenuous.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
06 Nov 18
@lemonjello saidIf you say that you do have an objective standard of morality, then where did you get this objective standard since an objective standard is one that is not based on your opinion or your experience?
dj2becker and sonship. Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Quite possibly the two most out-and-out ineducable (not to mention disingenuous) posters in the history of this forum. What follows is not another attempt at your education but simply putting some context to your continuing bad behavior.
At dj2becker (aka Fetchmyjunk): apparently you still think I am a moral relativi ...[text shortened]... u argumentatively incompetent on this issue; but, worse than that, you were thoroughly disingenuous.