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

[HOGCALLER]

It is possible to manufacture a perfect ball bearing, one with absolutely no discernible defects or measurable deviations from exact measurements and specifications. Even though the manufacturer can find no defect in the bearing they still put limitations on it such as rpm limitations, load limitations, temperature limitations and limitations on the type of lubrication to be used with the bearing and they even tell you that the L10 life of the bearing is only X number of hours. Why? It is a perfect bearing, isn't it? I thought that meant no limitations and no wearing out.



The bearing will only perform perfectly (meeting all standards and specifications) within its design limitations. So it was with the creation of Man. Since God himself works within the self-imposed limitations of his qualities, each one unlimited in capacity and potentiality nevertheless each quality acting as a restrain or limit on the others, and also within the bounds of his own law and principles, it should be no surprise that he expected the same from his creatures. Even more than that, he created them with and placed boundaries and limitations upon them. And since God's main motivation in creating was pure, true love and not narcissism, he chose not to make clones, duplicates, or mirror images of himself. Rather he chose to create a variety of intelligent creatures with different capabilities to meet different design specifications. His love, wisdom and other qualities caused him to reject “absolutes” in the design specifications of all of his creatures.



I am fairly certain that I do not need to explain to you why we have laws that restrict our freedoms even here in the “land of freedom.” In many ways the laws of this nation are based on and reflect the laws and principles found in the Bible. They do because man has not been able to truly and actually improve on those (God’s) and they have been found to work for the greater good. So just like the ball bearing, man was created with design specifications that required limitations. Therefore the free moral agency bestowed upon man by his Creator was not absolute and unlimited and it did not give him the right to break the law. And they (Adam and Eve) did break the law. Even though Eve was completely deceived about the ‘knowing good and evil’ part, she must have known that she was taking what did not belong to her, that she was stealing, a serious offense even today.



Man’s design specifications did not include being separated from God and therefore a ‘need’ for total self-determination or self-governance. So it was not built into him.



There are some who cannot stand the idea of being dependant on God. There are some who chafe at the very idea of any limitation or boundary being imposed upon them. They are above and too good for such things. As a result, and because God did not create them as absolute equals to himself (a position they feel entitled to), they feel slighted by and jealous of and then resentful and bitter and end up rejecting God. Their pride and arrogance blinds them to God's humility and good example in all things and they fail to recognize that God does not allow himself the absolutes they come to covet. For these reasons and many others besides, some others develop disillusionment and disbelief. And out of all those feelings and attitudes have developed the man-made concepts, past and present, which account for all the excesses and extremes as well as even all the mainstream ideas that lead to a rejection of God. The above also describes, in part, how a “perfect” and loyal angelic servant of God “created” or changed himself into a defiant, rebellious and bitterly hateful creature, God’s chief adversary, Satan.



You say: “Ah yes, independent thinking--religion's ultimate faux pas. There should have been an eleventh commandment which read "Thou shalt not think for thyself".”



I say: This is a prime example of the negativity I mentioned above. You take a good thing and twist it and make it out to be as negative a thing as you can. Reminds me of the discourse during the election. Unfortunately, it seems to be all too common now days. I feel a Dana Carvey moment coming on!

[HOGCALLER]

The Voice of Reason,

You are correct, Hogcaller. I could not, and would not say that you haven't given the matter serious thought. I am only trying to point out that if you are more succinct in making your point, it is easier for others to read and digest. Thus, you will get better responses.
Like Spinkles, I wish you well while you are away.

Take care,
TVOR

You are right in many ways as I have acknowledged in my reply to Mr_Spinkles. It is a flaw in my personality that only seems to have gotten worse with age. I will try to do better, that too is part of why I am posting here.

I will say this much more: I do not care much for 30-second sound bites.

[HOGCALLER]

Master Vigil,



Are we talking apples and apples, oranges and oranges or is it apples and oranges?



If you like apples and I like oranges do you think you can convince me to like apples by saying what I, as an orange lover, think are untrue things about oranges and on top of that imply I am defective in some way because I like oranges?



You say: “Do not attack me personally”



I say: please point out where I did. I did not intent to and do not think I did. But please, point out to me where I did so that I can avoid doing it again.

You say: “The simple idea of perfection says that perfection can not be relative. Think about what you are saying. How can something be perfect, and be relative. Perfection is an objective idea, not a relative one.”



I say: Huh? Read my reply to Mr_Spinkles and to standing_on_one_foot and explain, in detail please, how you are right and I am wrong. I am not being flip but I feel another Number Five moment coming on.



You say: “Saying that one perfection cannot negate another means... It means if many things are perfect, than one cannot be more perfect than another. And if multiple things are "perfect" than they in effect are the same thing.”



I say: then a perfect bearing, a perfect orange and a perfect apple are the same thing? Hog wash! (Pun intended, oh btw HOGCALLER is an old cb-radio ‘handle’ that became a ‘pen name’ or ‘screen name’ when I got onto the Internet.)



You say: “If you allow the bibles definition of perfection to be ambiguous”



I say: where, specifically, have I done what you accuse me of doing?



You say: “anyone who takes a basic logic course knows that one of the formal fallacious arguments is one of ambiguity.”



I say: you know, I was just thinking the exact same thing about you. Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black. Here is what I have said:



Perfection of any other [than God] person or thing, then, is relative, not absolute. (Compare Psalm 119:96) That is, a thing is “perfect” according to, or in relation to, the purpose or end for which it is appointed by its designer or producer, or the use to which it is to be put by its receiver or user. The very meaning of perfection requires that there be someone who decides when “completion” has been reached, what the standards of excellence are, what requirements are to be satisfied, and what details are essential. Ultimately, God the Creator is the final Arbiter of perfection, the Standard-Setter, in accord with his own righteous purposes and interests. (Romans 12:2)



As an illustration, the planet Earth was one of God’s creations, and at the end of six creative ‘days’ of work toward it, God pronounced the results “very good.” (Genesis 1:31) It met his supreme standards of excellence hence it was perfect. Yet he thereafter assigned man to “subdue it,” evidently in the sense of cultivating the earth and making the whole planet, and not just Eden, a garden of God. (Genesis 1:28; 2:8) In other words, what was already “very good” or perfectly suited to perform what was required and purposed for it was to be made more so.



Apparently your claim is that the above definition is ambiguous to you. If that is so, I have my doubts that I can ever ‘reason’ with you. To me the above is about as definite as can be. Please explain to me the ambiguities in the above.



You say: “My statements of opinion are based on logic and factual data.”



I say: please show me the “factual data,” in your statements I seem to have missed it somehow. BTW I do not count your opinion or the opinion of some other man as “factual data.”



You say: “This is why I have lost so much respect for christians. The main point of christianity and of all religions is goodness and love. Not trying to prove the bibles "perfection" and divinity. You have become trapped by your own quest to prove something that you lost your way. Did mother theresa debate the bible like this? Padre Pio? St. Francis? Even the dalai lama doesn't try to disprove the bible or prove the sutras. The book is not the point. It is the interpretation of the book that is important.”



I say: be very careful here! You should not confuse Christendom and Christianity! Not everyone who claims to be Christian is. (Matthew 7:20-23) I am not really making an effort to “prove the Bible” in this post other than in replies to specific questions or comments. What I am doing, among other things, is trying to correct “the interpretation” or understanding of it. When you say: “It is the interpretation of the book that is important,” what do you mean?

[HOGCALLER]

Ceridwen018,



You say:” 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: I hear you. I'm working on some ideas right now and will let you know when I post it.

You say: “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: the problem enters in the form of man's concepts and ideas that are not actually supported in the Bible. That is why I quote scriptures to support what I say. If you have not done so please read my replies to Mr_Spinkles and standing_on_one_foot rather than me repeating what I have already posted. There you will find my arguments, my definitions, my scriptural support, my illustrations and my reasonings for this statement: God is not omniscient (man-made word and concept) but he could be if he needed or wanted to be. He chooses not to be omniscient and for very good reason. Therefore, my answer to your question is: no, I do not agree with that. I do not agree with what I believe others led you to believe (via their possible influence and for sure misleading concepts and definitions).

You say: “Alright then, who DID create Satan, and who DID create evil?”

I say: Satan

You say: “Also, is god more powerful than Satan?”

I say: absolutely!

You say: “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.”

I say: you would be absolutely correct if it were a simply a question of power. But it is not, that is my whole point! Such a demonstration of power would not settle the moral questions and legal points that have been raised.

You say: “If god did not create satan, then that means that satan 'always was' just like god.”

I say: nice try! But not so! God did not create the Egyptian pyramids, does that mean they always were? Your concept does not allow the creation to work unless it is absolutely controlled in every minute detail by God. That is not the situation. Free will is part of the equation and allows Satan to be self-created without God being responsible.

You say: “then that means that god did not create everything.”

I say: exactly! God did not create Satan. God did not create imperfection (see the beginning of this thread).

You say: “Also, if satan created evil, that obviously shows that he has creating powers. What else did he create?”

I say: excellent observation and very good question! The Bible speaks of Satan creating many things. I will not detail them here and now. They mostly have to do with his “empire of death.” (Please read Hebrews 2:14) And you probably remember this: (Follow this link.)

You say: “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.”

I say: you are right! I stand corrected and you have my sincerest apology. I will try never to let it happen again.

You say: “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.”

I say: thank you very much for the explanation. Although I do not agree at least I now can “see” your point. First, you still think in absolute terms. Second, you do not “see” yet that free will is an expression of God’s love and wisdom. What God wants are creatures that willingly requite his love. That requires free will or freedom of choice. Remember the perfection of creation is not determined by the concepts of men but by the standards and requirements of God. Did his requirement that his creatures have freedom of choice make it possible for there to be a Satan? Yes it did, but it did not require it. That makes a big difference. Yes free will was abused but that does not make God responsible for the actions of the abusers. Adam and the angel could have remained faithful and sinless and we would not be having this discussion and paradise would cover the earth. Remember too, in the long run all this is not a real problem. Now before you start hyperventilating read the beginning of this thread again—we very definitely have problems. But in the total scheme of things they are minor problems. God did not need to worry about any possible problems when he began creation. Why not? Because there is no eventuality or problem he cannot easily handle. He is in the process of handling this one in such a way that it never has to be handled again. And then he is going to undo all the evil that has been done. Creation will be made perfect again and intelligent creation will enjoy true happiness and true freedom.

You say: “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: please read my replies to Mr_Spinkles and to standing_on_one_foot where I have cited several (not all) of the scriptures.

You say: “'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.”

I say: you are probably right about using 'The Matrix' comparison. I was not having a good night the other night when I wrote that. Hopefully, I'll do better in the future.

You say: “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.”

I say: You are not the first to express sentiments along the lines of giving up freewill for happiness. My response is simply this: God wants you to have both!




.

[Mr Spinkles]

Hogcaller--

I would like to say a few things about the nature of your comments, particularly those directed towards myself and others who disagree with you.

I would encourage an avoidance of the following assumptions in future posts:

1) That a question which challenges a set of beliefs equates to a lack of understanding of the beleifs in question.
2) That those who disagree with you all think the same, have always thought exactly as they currently do, have never seriously considered other points of view, and/or that your point of view is "new" to them.
3) That others do not have valid reasons to reject your arguments, but have merely failed to "get down off" their "high horse".
4) That you are free from the criticisms you have made of those who disagree with you (how seriously have you considered the Creation stories of the ancient Greeks?)
5) That a person's/group's rejection of the Bible equates to rejecting God and his Word
6) That because there may not be an answer to the aforementioned question that agrees with your set of beliefs, there is no answer and we must continue searching until we find an answer that does agree with your beliefs.
7) That the reason others do not agree with your claims is because--

• they have "given up"
• they are not "humble" enough
• they do not "trust in" or "love" God enough
• they are too "arrogant" or have too big an "ego"
• they "cannot stand the idea of being dependent on God"
• they don't like "any limitation or boundary being imposed on them"
• they feel "slighted by" "resentful" or "jealous" of God
• they are "disillusioned"

--rather than because your argument:

1. Stems from a mythology no more reliable than Native American, Greek, or Hindu creation mythology;
2. Makes the unreasonable claim that a perfect being devoid of evil would be inclined to create a world with the potential for both imperfection and evil;
and
3. Makes the unreasonable assertion that it is good for a deity to bestow upon its creation the ability to defy it, then accuses those who disagree with this assertion of not being able to "stand the idea of being dependent on God".

8) That your conception of God is God "as he IS" and all others are "man-made" and "incorrect".

I hope these suggestions aid us in continuing a respectful, enlightening discussion of this topic.

In addition, I would like to add that if you feel you have answered my question already in your original post, I apologize. All that is required, then, is to quote what part of the original post answered my question. Or, simply direct me back to the original post. Again, I apologize for any frustration this has caused you.

Originally Posted by Hogcaller

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.”

Just for clarification: when, exactly, was the world perfect? Was it during the Precambrian era, or the Jurassic, or the Stone Age? Do the fossil remains of Lucy date from this "perfect" epoch?

Also, you concede that in this hypothetical perfect world, humans had the ability to choose evil/go against God's law. It betrays the definition, however, to claim that a perfect world has the potential for imperfection.

[HOGCALLER]

Linwood,



Based on your following statement I assume you do not respect the Bible:



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.



Is that correct?



Based on your following statement I assume you do not respect God:



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".



Is that correct?



Based on the following statement I assume you do not respect me:



Quote:

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.



Is that correct?

[Ceridwen018]

You say: “Alright then, who DID create Satan, and who DID create evil?”

I say: Satan

Satan created himself?

You say: “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.”

I say: you would be absolutely correct if it were a simply a question of power. But it is not, that is my whole point! Such a demonstration of power would not settle the moral questions and legal points that have been raised.

Such a demonstration of power would rid the world of evil, and therefore do away with moral questions, etc.

You say: “If god did not create satan, then that means that satan 'always was' just like god.”

I say: nice try! But not so! God did not create the Egyptian pyramids, does that mean they always were? Your concept does not allow the creation to work unless it is absolutely controlled in every minute detail by God. That is not the situation. Free will is part of the equation and allows Satan to be self-created without God being responsible.

So humans created Satan by sinning? How is this so, unless 'Satan' is really some kind of metaphor, and not a supernaturla being at all.

I say: you are right! I stand corrected and you have my sincerest apology. I will try never to let it happen again.

No problem buddy, we're cool.

You say: “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.”

I say: You are not the first to express sentiments along the lines of giving up freewill for happiness. My response is simply this: God wants you to have both!

Then why can't he give us both? Or why doesn't he give us both?

[SoulTYPE]

Originally Posted by Ceridwen018

So humans created Satan by sinning? How is this so, unless 'Satan' is really some kind of metaphor, and not a supernaturla being at all.

That can't be true. Satan was around before people began sin.

[HOGCALLER]

mahayana,

You say: "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 say: HOGCALLER was originally a CB radio handle. When I started going onto the Internet about 10 years ago I was conversing primarily with people I knew from the CB radio, so I just kept the handle as a pen or screen name, less confusing for everyone. When I used it on this site I never dreamed any one would think that it implied such a thing. I would not be posting here if I thought that way. No need to apologize. I am not upset, just wanted to clear the air.

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

I say: Last time I read Job I would have swore that Satan did all the torturing and not God!
No, absolutely not! Job did not deserve what he got.

[HOGCALLER]

Mr_Spinkles,

You say: "I hope these suggestions aid us in continuing a respectful, enlightening discussion of this topic."

I say: I was sincere in asking for the "input" and want you to know that I appreciate your comments.

I will get back to you on the rest.

Good night and thanks again.