<< How could a perfect god not create a perfect man. >>
God did not create a perfect man in adam. Only God is perfect. To create a perfect man would mean to put somebody at God's level which is impossible.
<< How could a perfect god not create a perfect man. >>
God did not create a perfect man in adam. Only God is perfect. To create a perfect man would mean to put somebody at God's level which is impossible.
<< In my experiance a LOT of christians (but not all) lack both respect and tollerance for other's beliefs >>
<< I understand where you're coming from. I thought christians were hypocritical and intolerant of people who were different. I still feel like that a lot of times, but none of us should judge other people, whether they're christians, muslims, blacks, whites, etc., (I think we can all agree to that). >>
Well I must give you credit.
You are one of the most open minded and excepting Christians I've run into on this forum.
It's attitudes such as yours that truly live up to the real Christian (or what I think should be the real Christian) outlook!
Bravo!!
I never thought I'd see the day I would say this on here regarding a subject such as this one, but you my friend get a 10 from me!
<< God gave man the ability to freely choose and think. If He did not, then He might as well made mindless puppets. He created us so we can freely think and make decsions. However, this right to choose obviously can lead to wrong choices. It is not His fault that we chose wrongfully. >>
I'm curious about why you think God would prefer to have freely thinking disobedient people on the Earth rather than mindless, yet obedient, automatons. If God's purposes are perfectly just, then wouldn't it be best if everyone followed them to the letter? And why would a perfect being create imperfect beings if He could create perfect ones? In that sense it WOULD be His "fault" that we sin, since I assume that an all powerful being could have made us incapable of choosing wrongfully if He so desired. And if He puposefully made us capable of committing sin, then by our very nature we are incapable of NOT committing sins throughout a lifetime. How then can we be held accountable for all our sins by a perfectly just judge?
<< Sorry for crappin' the thread up earlier. I deleted the post and decided to contribute in a better way.
Omnipotent God? >>
I read that article and I think some assumptions we humans have are not necessarily true. One of the best scenes from the movie Dogma (an incredible movie, not just because it's funny as h3ll) which was actually an out take, shows Azrael talking about Hell. He says something to the effect that man made Hell into what it is. In the beginning it was merely the absence of God, which is Hell enough. Then when the first human arrived he or she begged to be punished for his or her unrighteousness. From there on Hell became quite nasty. To my knowledge that isn't in the Bible (thought it could be, I haven't read the whole blasted thing... yet hehe). But it seems like a very possible origin for Hell. I guess I'm restating that humans don't know everything. Paul said we witness to what we know (or something like that). There are a lot of things that aren't in the Bible that people basically assume. Christians don't know everything, and a lot of the common ideas that non-Christians use against theism are underdeveloped and based off of something that is anything except fact. Okay I'm rambling. I'll stop now.
upsciLLion
Oh, and FrugalGuy, besides congratulating you on this being the most under-control and disciplined discussion of theology and related ideas on ATOT I have ever seen in my short time here (one year some time this month), I just wanted to say one thing.
I think woman was guilty of original sin.
upsciLLion
I think woman was guilty of original sin.
upsciLLion
Well, another Christian here said that God created man in his own image, and man was perfect until he choose to defy God. Still the question of the angel Lucifer. An all-knowing perfect being should not be suprised at all that his creation chose to defy him, especially since God already has plans for each and every one of us, right?
<< I'm curious about why you think God would prefer to have freely thinking disobedient people on the Earth rather than mindless, yet obedient, automatons. >>
I don't know what God was thinking when He created us. If I did, I would be God =)
But, here's a guess. Let's use the father/son analogy again. If you were a parent, would you want a mindless, "automaton", that obeyed your every command? Or do you want a child that was of flesh and blood who possessed the abilty to make decisions (even if he was going to disobey you at times and make mistakes?) Yet despite the child's imperfections, he would still be able to love the parent back.
<< And why would a perfect being create imperfect beings if He could create perfect ones? In that sense it WOULD be His "fault" that we sin >>
See my previous post about God not creating a perfect man. Only God is perfect and thus He will not create another entity that is perfect because that would put it at the same level as God.
<< Well, another Christian here said that God created man in his own image, and man was perfect until he choose to defy God. >>
I don't think man was created perfect (See my previous posts for reason.) However man was created sinless and pure until Adam and Eve chose to disobey God. It's true that man was created in God's IMAGE. However it is an image only.
<< An all-knowing perfect being should not be suprised at all that his creation chose to defy him, especially since God already has plans for each and every one of us, right? >>
Yup, He knew that Lucifer and man would choose to disobey Him. Again, He allows evil to tempt us because Lucifer exists in our world. He allows the devil to exist because He allows His creations to choose wrongfully. That does not mean He is malevolent because it is by our own free will that we give into tempation.
<< Only God is perfect >>
No, all gods are inferior to Humans.
In fact, they too were created by aliens from another universe, the same who created this universe and all life in it.
Don't believe me? Then prove that I'm wrong.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings" - Albert Einstein
If you look at it as Einstein did, Epicurus' questions seem sort of stupid!
IMO, organized religion is the bane of mankind. I don't doubt there is a God of all, but I believe that life itself is God... that simple!
If you look at it as Einstein did, Epicurus' questions seem sort of stupid!
IMO, organized religion is the bane of mankind. I don't doubt there is a God of all, but I believe that life itself is God... that simple!
Define omnipotence, evil, and freedom and we might make some headway here.
Omnipotence
God is not omnipotent in the way that most moderne people think of the term.
Nothing that implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God-- Thomas Aquinas
God has the power to do anything that is non-contradictory. That is, God can do anything that is not self-contradictory or that contradicts God's Nature.
Freedom
Freedom is not the ability to do anything that one can imagine. Freedom means to act totally from within without any outward pressure or force. God is free in that no outside power causes Him to act; but God is not free to sin because sin violates His own nature, which is innate.
Evil
Evil is not the opposite of good, it is motion away from good. God is "good" and yet has no opposite. Good is the reality, good is ultimate Being, evil is loss and entropy and decay.
Take these three Christian defintions of omnipotence, freedom, and evil and then reconcile them in light of the statement that "God is Love" and one can see how they might synthesize.
We know little about love, but we do know that it is love's nature to be shared. Also, we know all too well that love cannot be forced.
So, it is not as though God sits in eternity past and ponders the dillemma: "To create or not create, that is the question." It is God's nature to create, there is no outside force that limits His freedom and thus would prevent Him from creating, thus everything exists. It is God's nature to love, and it is love's nature to only be reciprocated by volitional consent. With volitional consent comes the innate possibility that conscious creatures could move towards love or away from it.
hence, this world exists. It is not the best of all possible worlds, and neither was "Eden." It is the necessary world to eventually arrive at the Best Possible World.
Epicurus, logic is sound, but his premise is not consistent with the Christian concept of God.
Omnipotence
God is not omnipotent in the way that most moderne people think of the term.
Nothing that implies contradiction falls under the omnipotence of God-- Thomas Aquinas
God has the power to do anything that is non-contradictory. That is, God can do anything that is not self-contradictory or that contradicts God's Nature.
Freedom
Freedom is not the ability to do anything that one can imagine. Freedom means to act totally from within without any outward pressure or force. God is free in that no outside power causes Him to act; but God is not free to sin because sin violates His own nature, which is innate.
Evil
Evil is not the opposite of good, it is motion away from good. God is "good" and yet has no opposite. Good is the reality, good is ultimate Being, evil is loss and entropy and decay.
Take these three Christian defintions of omnipotence, freedom, and evil and then reconcile them in light of the statement that "God is Love" and one can see how they might synthesize.
We know little about love, but we do know that it is love's nature to be shared. Also, we know all too well that love cannot be forced.
So, it is not as though God sits in eternity past and ponders the dillemma: "To create or not create, that is the question." It is God's nature to create, there is no outside force that limits His freedom and thus would prevent Him from creating, thus everything exists. It is God's nature to love, and it is love's nature to only be reciprocated by volitional consent. With volitional consent comes the innate possibility that conscious creatures could move towards love or away from it.
hence, this world exists. It is not the best of all possible worlds, and neither was "Eden." It is the necessary world to eventually arrive at the Best Possible World.
Epicurus, logic is sound, but his premise is not consistent with the Christian concept of God.
The question posed by Epicurus and later made popular through the work of David Hume is valid and the conclusions are valid. I think someone above noted that. The point is that if you accept the basic premise laid out you will arrive at the same conclusion.
The way around the argument is to destroy the straw man. Alvin Platinga formed the best known response to this question known as the Free Will Defense (which is being used in this thread). This is generally the standard Christian response to the dilemma. For a different response you can check out John Stackhouse's book "Can God Be Trusted?".
An funny quote in regard to Hume that relates to this type of question is "Even David Hume knocks his head when he walks through the door." (Hume being a tall man).
The way around the argument is to destroy the straw man. Alvin Platinga formed the best known response to this question known as the Free Will Defense (which is being used in this thread). This is generally the standard Christian response to the dilemma. For a different response you can check out John Stackhouse's book "Can God Be Trusted?".
An funny quote in regard to Hume that relates to this type of question is "Even David Hume knocks his head when he walks through the door." (Hume being a tall man).
<< I don't know what God was thinking when He created us. If I did, I would be God =)
But, here's a guess. Let's use the father/son analogy again. If you were a parent, would you want a mindless, "automaton", that obeyed your every command? Or do you want a child that was of flesh and blood who possessed the abilty to make decisions (even if he was going to disobey you at times and make mistakes?) Yet despite the child's imperfections, he would still be able to love the parent back. >>
I'm not sure that I agree with you here. If I could make a perfectly loyal child, and I knew that my way is the best way to happiness, then why wouldn't I want a perfectly happy automaton? There must be some benefit to having evil and free choice in the world, or else it does just seem like malevolence, as the original poster quoted.
I am also curious about the concept of Adam's original sin. It seems that having each of us inherit this fallen state argues against one of the major tenets of Christianity. After all, wouldn't Jesus have inherited this sin, just like everyone else? He did have a mortal mother just like all the rest of us.
Imported
Lifer
- Sep 2, 2000
- 14,679
- 23
- 81
<< OK, well here we go again..
I think the thing that bothers me most about most devoutly religious people is this "I KNOW" attitude.
The ONLY thing religious or NON religious people can KNOW is that they don't KNOW anything.
On this topic there are NO absolutes.
One can THINK, one can BELIEVE, one can ASSUME, and most importantly, one can HOPE. But NO ONE can KNOW.
To state an opinion or belief as fact is the major force that drove me from the church in the first place.
Arrogance and "holier than thou" attitude's will continue to keep me away!
Please be enlightened enough to state opinions as such.
Thanks for your time .... <End of sermon> >>
So true.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,512
- 21
- 81
I know I said I was leaving this thread, but since it has, much to my delight and surprise, remained civil, I'm coming back anyway.
<<To create a perfect man would mean to put somebody at God's level which is impossible.>>
If it is truly impossible, then does that not mean that God is therefore not omnipotent?
ZV
<<To create a perfect man would mean to put somebody at God's level which is impossible.>>
If it is truly impossible, then does that not mean that God is therefore not omnipotent?
ZV
Two things:
1) This "orginal sin" is really irrelevant. Let's just assume that it's bogus......
- Who hasn't "sinned" (Christanity's definition).......since they were born......(lied, adultery, stole, hated, etc...).....
so what difference does it make if we were born with sin or we acquired it afterwards????
2) If you have something you believe in STRONGLY, as of the Christians posting. THEN YOU SHOULD FEEL OBLIGATED TO TELL OTHERS. If a person believes that cigarettes cause cancer THEN TELL SOMEONE. There was once a person who thought the world was round......what would've happened if he hadn't told others b/c they would rip on him? (yea, I'm sure someone would've figured it out evetually). So, again, I think people who believe in stuff that might "save me" then I want to hear about it. And what difference does it make if you believe or KNOW it......in reality we don't KNOW anything for 100% fact. Hey, I could be a dream right now....personally I think I'm a 8'11" African woman dreaming that I'm a computer geek.
Quite Frankly I wish more people would tell me about what they believe, whether it be Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JW's, Hindus, Bhudists, etc. I think that people have a pretty good discernment of the truth. So let people decide. And if a person doesn't have a clue...then they're screwed anyway. Now, I?m not saying that people?s rights should be violated if you believe something (like WTC 9/11) or bombing abortion centers. I think the problem is when people act as a spokesperson and MISREPRESENT what other?s believe or when they get verballly abusive. No one likes that. But I guess when you believe something so strongly (as religion does to people), it?s hard to turn down the intensity level.
1) This "orginal sin" is really irrelevant. Let's just assume that it's bogus......
- Who hasn't "sinned" (Christanity's definition).......since they were born......(lied, adultery, stole, hated, etc...).....
so what difference does it make if we were born with sin or we acquired it afterwards????
2) If you have something you believe in STRONGLY, as of the Christians posting. THEN YOU SHOULD FEEL OBLIGATED TO TELL OTHERS. If a person believes that cigarettes cause cancer THEN TELL SOMEONE. There was once a person who thought the world was round......what would've happened if he hadn't told others b/c they would rip on him? (yea, I'm sure someone would've figured it out evetually). So, again, I think people who believe in stuff that might "save me" then I want to hear about it. And what difference does it make if you believe or KNOW it......in reality we don't KNOW anything for 100% fact. Hey, I could be a dream right now....personally I think I'm a 8'11" African woman dreaming that I'm a computer geek.
Quite Frankly I wish more people would tell me about what they believe, whether it be Muslims, Jews, Mormons, JW's, Hindus, Bhudists, etc. I think that people have a pretty good discernment of the truth. So let people decide. And if a person doesn't have a clue...then they're screwed anyway. Now, I?m not saying that people?s rights should be violated if you believe something (like WTC 9/11) or bombing abortion centers. I think the problem is when people act as a spokesperson and MISREPRESENT what other?s believe or when they get verballly abusive. No one likes that. But I guess when you believe something so strongly (as religion does to people), it?s hard to turn down the intensity level.
I think the huge unsolved question is why did God make people in the first place (assuming God exists)?????
To make himself happy, or more "happier"......well if God can't make himself content, what kind of God is that?
As an experiment? Well I don't want to be his test rat. And I thought he was all-knowing....and wouldn't need to do that. (personally I think the experiment thing is stupid reasoning)
Someone want to shed some light on this?
To make himself happy, or more "happier"......well if God can't make himself content, what kind of God is that?
As an experiment? Well I don't want to be his test rat. And I thought he was all-knowing....and wouldn't need to do that. (personally I think the experiment thing is stupid reasoning)
Someone want to shed some light on this?
<< Someone want to shed some light on this? >>
Well, first of all, who or what is this 'god' you're talking about?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,512
- 21
- 81
<<1) This "orginal sin" is really irrelevant. Let's just assume that it's bogus......
- Who hasn't "sinned" (Christanity's definition).......since they were born......(lied, adultery, stole, hated, etc...).....
so what difference does it make if we were born with sin or we acquired it afterwards????>>
Is it not the general premise of most Christian religions that the only reason man sins today is because of original sin? Would we not be untempted by sin if original sin did not exist?
ZV
- Who hasn't "sinned" (Christanity's definition).......since they were born......(lied, adultery, stole, hated, etc...).....
so what difference does it make if we were born with sin or we acquired it afterwards????>>
Is it not the general premise of most Christian religions that the only reason man sins today is because of original sin? Would we not be untempted by sin if original sin did not exist?
ZV
Again, He allows evil to tempt us because Lucifer exists in our world. He allows the devil to exist because He allows His creations to choose wrongfully.
So it sounds like he's just stroking his ego, that he would create humans and put them in a choose me or lose me situation. It doesn't stand to any kind of reason. Love? Why does he need our love?
So it sounds like he's just stroking his ego, that he would create humans and put them in a choose me or lose me situation. It doesn't stand to any kind of reason. Love? Why does he need our love?
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,512
- 21
- 81
<<This (free choice and therefor the ability to learn) is a gift from God so we can eventually realise ourselves.>>
Would not a benevolent and omnipotent diety both want and be able to create a world in which we realise ourselves without requiring freedom of choice?
ZV
Would not a benevolent and omnipotent diety both want and be able to create a world in which we realise ourselves without requiring freedom of choice?
ZV
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter