"Why? Why? WHY?!" a direct quote from Ceridwen018 and many others (Jesus, moral)

[Doc]

Well stated! St. Francis did not dawdle over divinity of the Book! You could memorize everything in the Bible but it is what you do with that knowledge is important!

[Ceridwen018]

I say: you first! “Scientific facts say that god is unnecessary.” Really? And which “facts” are those? And don't answer with theories.

I made a mistake and you picked up on it, thank you. Obviously, from a scientific point of view, I cannot provide you with definite "proof" on account of because in science nothing is ever 100% certain. However, I CAN provide you with theories, which have been tried and tested and accepted, in many cases, as law. To rephrase my question to you, in order to keep it fair in that we are both expected to meet the same criteria, I ask you for theories instead of proof. Where are your theories? Or, if you have proof, you could always one-up me and post that.

I say: really? Did you read somewhere in the Bible that that God is omniscient? If not, then somebody told you that, correct? And that someone(s) may very well have told you something that is not correct and misinformed you. So let me ask you: how? Please prove the above statement.

I won't argue that you're more familiar with the bible than I am. I am aware that the words "God is omniscient" aren't scralled across Leviticus, but I was under the impression that the bible mentions God as being all-knowing and all-powerful, which is the definition of omniscient. Basically, if god isn't omniscient, then that means that he is not all-knowing or all-powerful. Do you agree with that?

I say: you are absolutely right. And he didn't! AND I say it AGAIN: “It very well may be that you will refuse to accept the facts as presented in the Bible, but God did not create Satan in the first place! Nor did he “create” evil! And your accusation claiming that he did does not make it so.” “You need to read my post again because you obviously missed the point. You are making claims or assumptions that are contrary to what the Bible says and to what I said, also.”

Alright then, who DID create Satan, and who DID create evil? Also, is god more powerful than Satan? If he is, than he is perfectly capable of disposing of Satan, and therefore responsible for evil by not doing everything in he can to prevent it.

If god did not create satan, then that means that satan 'always was' just like god. Perhaps satan shares eual power with god? Perhaps satan is MORE powerful than god? Bottom line, if god did not create satan, then that means that god did not create everything. Also, if satan created evil, that obviously shows that he has creating powers. What else did he create?

I say: no! Let's not forget about Deuteronomy. You continue to make these very tall claims but you provide no proof. Prove Deuteronomy 32:4 is “incoherent with basic logic and reason.” Yes, something did go wrong but apparently you are so sure of what you think I'm saying and so set in your opinions and preconceived ideas that you are not able understand what I actually say and therefore you ignored what I said about it!

Please do not make assumptions about what I think. If I misinterpreted what you were trying to say, do not immediately suspect that it is because I am pretentious and close minded. If you could politely explain what it is you meant and where I went wrong, we might be able to get somewhere here.

Let me spell out my train of thought here, so you can see why I find Deuteronomy to be illogical in this context: If it is true that god does not want evil, then obviously something went wrong in the garden of eden, as evil was introduced. The passage you cited from Deuteronomy states that "God is perfect in his work". Obviously, if god allowed for a crack through which evil could slip, his work in this instance was NOT perfect, and therefore in direct contradition to Deuteronomy.

When he wants to foreknow something he can and does, but that does not mean that he cannot control himself and must foreknow “everything”.

Where does it say that in the bible? I don't remember any verses like, "Well, god could totally know if he wanted to, but he just doesn't. He holds his powers back sometimes."

I say: you obviously didn't think that one through! Unhappiness does not stem from freewill but rather from the misuse of free choice. I viewed the movie ‘Matrix’ for the first time about two weeks ago. Surely you would not prefer life in the Matrix? Do you really want to be an automaton?

'The Matrix' is not an appropriate analogy when we're trying to talk about free-will. The people in the Matrix had just as much 'free-will' as those out of it, they just didn't have to handle the machines.

Bottom line--If being an automaton meant that I was completely happy all the time and didn't want for anything, I would choose that over having 'free-will' and being sad.

[linwood]

“Scientific facts say that god is unnecessary.” Really? And which “facts” are those? And don't answer with theories.

Scientific facts don`t directly state that god is unnecessary but scientific method does.
Occams Razor.

Did you read somewhere in the Bible that that God is omniscient?

Please prove the above statement.

Yes, I did.

John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 16:30
Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
Colossians 2:3
(Christ)In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
Acts 1:24
"And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men.
Ps.139:2-3
"Thou knowest my down-sitting and mine up-rising; thou understands my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.”
Ps.44:21
"For he knoweth the secrets of the heart."
Ps.139:7-8
"Whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there; if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."
Pr.15:3
"The eyes of the Lord are in every place."
Jer.16:17
"For mine eyes are upon all their ways: they are not hid from my face, neither is their iniquity hid from mine eyes."
Jer.23:24
"Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth?"
Acts 1:24
"Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men."

Prove Deuteronomy 32:4 is “incoherent with basic logic and reason.

Half the verse is unprovable because you would have to first prove that God exists.
The other half is provable simply because I could cite a litany of imperfections in this world he created. I could also show that God is extremely unjust considering accepted ethics today.
He kills innocents, punishes the sons for the crimes of their fathers.
Etc..etc..on..on..and on and on… Before I continue you will have to tell me your definition of "just".

When he wants to foreknow something he can and does, but that does not mean that he cannot control himself and must foreknow “everything”.

This is only your interpretation of scripture.

Please cite verse that supports it.

It is a serious case of splitting hairs because either way he is still omniscient.

I would also like you to cite reference for your earlier claim that Satan was in fact in Eden and misled Eve.

This reply is rushed and I apologise but I`m heading out the door.I`ll give a more thorough reply later.

[SoulTYPE]

It was too much to quote, but ceridwens last post was very excellent. the part about Satan, anyways.

Resume your arguments ppl.

[mahayana]

It's hard to know where to begin responding to a thread with so many philosophical and theological questions and assertions.

Perfection and imperfection is a duality, a way of looking at phenomenon and putting them in separate columns. Good (God) and evil (Devil) is another duality, like just/unjust, moral/immoral, saved/damned, correct/incorrect, etc.

Humans like to think in these paradigms, though they are ultimately divisive of the whole, just a confusion. The Bible is really more important in suggesting what ethical behavior is, than in answering deep questions about existence, history, ultimate reasons.

One further observation: Hogcaller is a name which conjures a farmer speaking to his pigs. Perhaps we can't appreciate his pearls, due to our inferior, beastly, unclean nature?

I do empathize with Job and Sisyphus, all those tormented by God in our literature. Humans deserve what they get, no?

[linwood]

One further observation: Hogcaller is a name which conjures a farmer speaking to his pigs. Perhaps we can't appreciate his pearls, due to our inferior, beastly, unclean nature?

I prefer to think it`s because his pearls are actually fakes and not pearls at all.

The Bible is really more important in suggesting what ethical behavior is

I have to disagree.
I can`t think of an literary influence that is a worse moral guide in this day and age.
What correct ethical edicts the Bible puts forth are usually directly contradicted by the Bible elsewhere.

[mahayana]

My way with all the holy books is to take from them only what makes sense to me. While it's easy to react to preachers trying to convince you of their views (and overviews), ultimately your integrity is more important than their judgements.

Religion without contradiction is rare, without paradox rarer still.

[SoulTYPE]

Originally Posted by mahayana

My way with all the holy books is to take from them only what makes sense to me.

Or what you WANT to make sense? Is this not taking the bible out of context? I say this because God's words are supposed to be full and understood entirely. Not a go at you.

Originally Posted by mahayana

Religion without contradiction is rare, without paradox rarer still.

Now THAT I agree with. The bible is full of inviting contradiction.

[HOGCALLER]

Mr_Spinkles,

You again ask: "Can God create a perfect world?" That tells me that, at a minimum, you still do not understand and accept the fact that I believe God “did” create a perfect world. And that is in spite of the fact that I have said so, more than once, in this thread and you know that I have argued such previously on this site, is that not correct? Therefore asking me “can” God do something he already “did” is a non sequitur. Would you like to reword the question? Or, should I again just answer this way: yes, God “can” create a perfect world, he already “did.”



I “listened”, to you primarily but also others, in that previous thread and was moved to respond to the comments, questions and complaints expressed there by preparing what I have presented in this thread. As I stated in my introduction and as I have stated in the past, my desire in this is not to be a contrarian but to give you (meaning all readers of these words) a “new” point of view to consider and to stand up for God and his Word. I have discussed this subject with many ‘believers’ and usually found their explanations wanting. And from many atheists what I have “heard” (referring to the tone of what was said) is an in-your-face cynicism (that may be a bit harsh but it was at least arrogant superiority), skepticism and negativity that left me cold. I feel relatively certain that almost everyone confident enough in his beliefs to post here is not ‘looking’ for something different but someone reading this may be. Perhaps what I am really trying to say to you all is, “give me, and more importantly, any ‘lookers,’ something more than ‘bluff and bluster’ (referring to tone) to go on.”



Again, it appears that, at a minimum, we are not communicating with, or rather I should say not understanding, each other very well. Therefore, I am sure that my answer is a non sequitur in your eyes. You can tell me all about the faulty “logic” of my answer if you wish, but I can already imagine what you might say. Already being somewhat familiar with what might be said is why I went into so much detail with my original post in this thread. In it I have already touched on many, perhaps even most, of the objections to my point of view. My hope was that by presenting my point of view in a complete, connected, logical (at lease in my mind) and presented-all-at-once form it would be easier to understand, it seems I was mistaken. I apologize to you all for it being so long that you cannot remember what I have said after you read it and then make comments or ask questions which irritate me because I think you have not bothered to read the post. My mistake.



There may be other factors at work here, also. Let me use an illustration that I think applies: at one time a common marketing ploy was to mail a contest entry form that included a message hidden in a patch of multicolored dots. To read the message and determine whether or not you were a winner you had to visit the place of business and pick up a special pair of glasses that allowed you to see the message. Without those ‘goofy glasses’ you could not understand the message even though it was right there in plain sight. Much in life works like that; this discussion and especially coming to a correct understanding of the Bible works like that. I am not saying that having “special glasses” is a bad thing, but it is unavoidable for we each possess our own individual pair of “corrective lenses.” They sometime work for our good and our protection but they also can work to the bad and our detriment. Sometimes we refuse to come down off our high horse and try out those ‘goofy glasses’ and we miss out on the ‘prize.’ Please do not dismiss me and my message simply because you have to get off your high horse and put on those darn ‘goofy glasses.’



There was a time when I was much better at engaging in this sort of discussion. I am almost twenty years out of practice, in fact, part of the reason I came to and posted on this site was for my benefit, to try to get that back. Please bear with me as I “fight” my way back into shape. Anyway, as I remember it, part of being good at this was a willingness to be open to other’s ideas and to the possibility that I was wrong. Also, I remember playing a mind game that helped me; I called it ‘what if.’ I invite you and any other reader to join me in playing ‘what if’ and to think about and consider other’s points of view and beliefs from the perspective of ‘what if.’ It always seemed to help me to ask many ‘what if’ questions, always including “What if I am wrong and he is right?”



How does that apply to answering your question? Consider this: what if you, as a sighted person (I will feel sooo bad if I have assumed incorrectly), were called upon to describe the color blue to a person blind from birth? It would be very difficult because you do not share a frame of reference. Perhaps this question is better: what if you were called upon to prove that the earth is a sphere to a person who is convinced that the earth is flat? (Follow this link.) How could you do so when they reflexively reject every word you say and counter every proof you present with their own set of facts and proofs? The answer is to establish common ground, to share a frame of reference, to exchange ‘goofy glasses.’



I must tell you that I feel a bit like Number Five from the movie Short Circuit who kept repeating, “More input, please.” In addition to the above referenced disagreement regarding "can" and "did," we apparently disagree about ‘perfection’ as it applies to man and the world. Several others have made statements to that effect also. Mr_Sprinkles and everybody else also, how can I give you an answer to your question(s) when I don't know what you mean when you say “perfect?” Please define your terms so that we can “share a frame of reference.” I have already presented my “frame of reference” including definitions and some scriptural support for them and I have even supplied reasons why I chose to use the Bible to provide my answer to my original question. Those definitions and reasons make up the prescription to my “corrective lenses.” If you do not agree with my definitions and reasons then you must provide me with your definitions and your reasons that support them; otherwise you leave me unable to “see.”



Again, in my introduction I stated that my argument would be “from the Bible.” Unfortunately, to some the accepting of God and his Word, even for the sake of argument, is so distasteful that what I suggest above is all but impossible for them. Even though I acknowledge that such is the case and recognize their "right" to feel that way, still I must say: to bad for them. I invite them to stay and to post because, even though there may be little benefit for them, I will benefit and I need all the help and practice I can get. However, those who can and do play “what if” are the ones who ask the best questions and make the best points and that will benefit us all.

[HOGCALLER]

Mr_Sprinkles, you bring up a good question even though the premise of your point is flawed and incorrect, from my standpoint. Please correct me if I am wrong but the way I understand your question is that it goes to the issue of free moral agency versus self-determination or self-governance. I hope I am correct because that is what I am going to address.



Also, my first guess is that in this aspect of your question the actual disagreement is not about the definitions of the words “free moral agency” and “free will” and the words “self-determination” and “self-governance” as much as it is that we are disagreeing about the concept of “absolutes” versus “relatives,” am I correct? (I am guessing here because you have not explained what your belief is and on what it is based. Nor have you detailed to me what of mine you reject and why; I have no choice but to guess.) In other words the real issue is: I believe that perfection, freedom, free moral agency and all other such things, as they apply to creation, are “relative,” even in a “perfect” world, while you insist that those things can only be “absolutes” in a “perfect” world, is that right?



Second, there may also be a problem on your part in understanding that while God, and God alone, is capable of such absolutes, he chooses not to use or exercise such. I am really guessing on this one for I have absolutely no idea what your concept of God is. Hopefully you will remedy that. But until then let me proceed.



Third, just as physicists, based on what is now known, can figure back only to a certain point after the big bang but no further, so it is with our knowledge of God, we do not now know nor will we ever know the answers to all possible questions about him (just one of the many reasons why eternity will not be boring). The question you have asked could possibly be boiled down to, or carried out to if you prefer, a question I cannot answer based on what I now know. But just as a physicist does not abandon what he knows and believes because he runs up against a question he cannot answer, so it is with me and any other true believer. You may or may not have thought about one of the ultimate implications of your question, so I will say no more at this point. I will say this, seeking answers to questions is not solely the purview of science, regardless of the arrogant protestations otherwise, and, just as it is in science it is with the Bible—the more you know the more you come to know how much you do not know. And therein lies the true answer to your question; it all boils down to the seeker’s true motivations. In science those who give up do not find the answers. Unfortunately, also in the realm of religion many are too quick to give up. In the man-made religion of science the case is that he who is most fiercely competitive, he who has the biggest and most arrogant ego is most times the most successful. In religion truly based on the Bible and reflecting God’s qualities and personality, the opposite is true. Those who have enough love and faith in God to humbly wait on and trust in him to provide an answer (Please read Psalm 145:16), in due time, are the ones that come up with the answers. And I do not mean by setting around doing nothing but waiting for an epiphany, I mean by working harder on the basics and looking for what may have been missed that might provide some clue. If you truly, sincerely want to know the answer to the question you ask, I may be able to help you find it; but if you do not, I cannot. So here we go.



“Fruitage of the spirit,” some qualities of which God is the source are listed at Galatians 5:22, 23 which reads: “On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.” God exercises each of those qualities perfectly, but not absolutely. God has the capability to carry any of those qualities to an “absolute” or infinite or unlimited degree but he chooses not to do so. For example: God has shown himself to be perfect in long-suffering (Definition: the patient endurance of wrong or provocation, combined with a refusal to give up hope for improvement in the disturbed relationship.) it can be said that he is the “absolute” embodiment of that quality. Yet God’s exercise of that quality shows that he imposed limits upon it, as he has repeatedly demonstrated by his acts of judgment and punishment, therefore, it is not “unlimited.” Yes, God's patience and long-suffering are “perfect” but there are limits to them. Why? It is because his other “absolute” qualities of justice, wisdom and love require it. Let us carry this thinking a little further. Being limited does not equate to being imperfect. At the same time, being without limits does not equate to being perfect. My hope is that my ‘goofy glasses’ will help you see God as he IS and not as man-made concepts and ‘incorrect prescriptions’ have made him out to be.



Perhaps it will be that you do not like my choice of long-suffering. Therefore, let me provide you with another example of what I mean. Free moral agency stems, in part, from the “absolute” quality of freedom possessed by God. Even though the term and idea is man-made, God, and God alone, is capable of “absolute freedom.” Although capable of “absolute freedom,” is that how God conducts himself? No, he acts, not only as the Law-Giver, but also as the Law-Keeper. That means that he does not operate outside his own “laws” and principles. Please remember self-control is also on the list above. Even though “with God all things are possible” (Matthew 19:26; Mark 14:36), God’s perfection causes him to put limitations on himself so that “God cannot lie” and “it is impossible for God to lie.” (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) Therefore, it becomes obvious that God’s perfection arises, in many ways, from his self-controlled, self-imposed limitation of his absolute, unlimited characteristics. For a correct understanding of God, and of the Bible, one must not make the common mistake of thinking that everything called “perfect” is so in an absolute sense, that is, to an infinite degree, without any limitations. Being arbitrary and going to absurd extremes is a characteristic of sinful creation.



Speaking of which (absurd extremes), let me ask you (all) a few questions. Does your concept of perfection mean that for a man to be considered perfect he would have to be unlimited or infinite in every aspect? Therefore to be perfect Adam would have had to have infinite knowledge and unlimited experience? And that he would be required to do everything to absolute perfection at all times and anything short of absolute perfection in every minute detail would mean that he was not perfect in any way? Is that a correct description?



Therefore, according to that concept, the very first time Adam strapped on a pair of ice skates he would have been able to go out and skate a 10.0 long routine, correct? And if Adam had been a carpenter, it would mean that he could never ever bend a nail or hit his thumb, right? Or if Adam had designed and built an automobile it would, having been built by perfect Adam, have to perfect also and would never have worn out and broke down, in fact, it wouldn't even have had any rattles or squeaks, is that so? All I can say to that is, “Boy am I glad God rejected that concept.” No wonder so many people have told me that they do not want to live never-ending perfect lives. A life of such absolutes does not seem appealing. That concept finds no foundation in the Bible. Please explain to me what in nature or science, what in the world makes you believe that human perfection has to be that way?