|
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#81
11-15-2004, 08:15 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I should hope that an 'overwhelming show of power' from god would be a bit different from that of the US... Quote:
This doesn't make sense though. If God were all-powerful, he wouldn't have to wait around to do something. If God were all-loving, he wouldn't WANT to wait around to do something.
__________________
The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. ~Socrates 
|
|
#82
11-15-2004, 11:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Good call Ceridwen!
|
|
#83
11-16-2004, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#84
11-17-2004, 06:02 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Fire and brimstone contradicts Jesus' idea that God is a loving father.
Much of the NT message contradicts much of the OT message, for instance regarding capital punishment and war.
|
|
#85
11-20-2004, 04:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, it would help if you would please identify which epoch in human (or hominid?) history you believe to have been "perfect".
__________________
|
|
#86
11-21-2004, 07:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr_Spinkles,
A quote from Cool Hand Luke: “What we got here is a failure to communicate!” Does God have the “ability” to create a “perfect” world in the “absolute” sense that your question implies, or in other words, according to Mr_Spinkles’ specifications? Yes, absolutely, he has that ability. Having the ability to do so does not mean that it must automatically follow that he should or would. Remember please that the world he did create was perfect according to his specifications even if not so by Mr_Spinkles’ specifications. Being perfect according to God’s standard (revealed and defined in the Bible) does not require that the world be perfect according to any and all possible standards including Mr_Spinkles’ or any and every one else’s standard. To understand this issue read (or reread) posts #17-20 on page 2 and #22 on page 3 of this thread. The Bible is imperfect in the view of many. Why? Because they refuse to accept it for what it is and try to impose upon it their individual standards. Consider: some complain that it is too long and detailed and much to categorical while others complain that it is overly simplistic and lacking in detail or is not sufficiently explicit. How could the Bible meet both those standards? . . . By not meeting those standards the Bible is perfectly accomplishing one of God’s standards or purposes for the Bible—that it be a winnowing tool. How could God ever create a world to meet Mr_Spinkles’ standards? First you criticize God for allowing independent thinking (free will requires independent thinking) and next you criticize for him for not allowing independent thinking (see post #33 on page 4 of this thread). Putting it as simply as I know how here is how it works. To meet God’s standard of perfection required that all his intelligent creatures have free will with its inherent independent thinking and potential for abuse. Because of God’s “omni” qualities he did not have to worry about that potential abuse because when and IF it ever came up he could handle it. (Why “IF”? Remember it took many untold billions of years before a problem finally arose.) He is in the process of solving the problems and settling the issues. Not only that, God will undo all the bad effects brought about by Satan and resulting from rebellion, every single one. Intelligent creatures will retain all the rights and responsibilities that come with free will and independent thinking. That means that the potential for future abuse remains. However, because of God’s wisdom in handling this rebellion there will be no need to ever repeat this process. Based on the precedents being established now there will be an immediate execution of justice. So the future may hold in store other rebellions but never again will they disturb the peace and perfection of that everlasting world. .
|
|
#87
11-21-2004, 08:02 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
 Here it is, again: Does God have the ability to create a perfect world that will remain forever perfect? (I realize your answer is 'yes') Why doesn't/didn't God create a perfect world that would remain forever perfect? (If your answer is "because that would violate our free moral agency" please refer back to the first question) No, I'm not talking about "perfect" as in perfect according to Mr_Spinkles' specifications. I'm talking about "perfect" according to your own (what you believe to be God's) specifications. You said that Eve introduced imperfection (sin, suffering, etc.) when she ate the fruit. Putting aside, for the moment, why on earth one should believe this story as divine truth rather than ancient tribal mythology, the question at hand is: Does God have the ability to create a perfect world that will remain forever perfect? You have already stated that the world God created did not remain forever perfect. So the follow-up question is... Why doesn't/didn't God create a perfect world that would remain forever perfect? If your answer is "because that would violate our free moral agency" please refer back to the first question. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, it would help if you would please identify which epoch in human (or hominid?) history you believe to have been "perfect". ....Pretty please?
__________________
|
|
#88
11-23-2004, 02:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mr_Spinkles,
“[Mr_Spinkles], with all due respect, I believe what we got here is a failure to [accept the] answer [to] the question. Here it is, again:” First, your question has your specification built into it so there is no way that your question can be separated from your specification: “that will remain forever perfect”. Once again just so there is no mistake, the question, with or without specification, was and is answered: “Yes, absolutely, he has that ability. Having the ability to do so does not mean that it must automatically follow that he should or would.” I know that you do not agree, but, to me, God’s way, as I understand it, is better than Mr_Spinkles’ way, as I understand it. You say: “No my friend, on the contrary I do accept the Bible for what it is. You are the one trying to impose upon it your a priori beliefs.” I say: Well, excuuuusse me! I humbly bow before your obviously superior and overwhelming knowledge of the Bible. Please sir, correct my errant thinking and beliefs so that everyone may benefit. I await your words of enlightenment. OK, I will stop that now and I apologize for my lame attempt at humor. You say: “No, first I criticized religious institutions created by humankind for not allowing independent thinking. (Remember, I don't believe in a God--to me, humans created the ten commandments, and humans are responsible for enforcing them--not a deity.) Then I criticized the argument that giving humans the ability to do evil is somehow more "good" than preventing humans from doing evil.” I say: You seem to forget what I said at the beginning of this thread and what I have said in other posts that I too am critical of man-made ideas and actions that have besmirched God’s name and have caused the ranks of nonbelievers to swell. You might even remember that I took to task some of those ideas and actions. (Follow this link.) Unfortunately, you also seem to forget the point that I make through out this thread, as we will see in the next “You say”. Or perhaps I should say that that you cannot grasp or agree with God’s ways of doing things or, if you prefer, with my explanations of them. That I can understand. It must be hard, if not impossible, to correctly understand my concept, the Bible’s concept or, for that matter, any concept (other than your own) of something you seem to disdain and claim is nonexistent—God (remember color and flat earth). Therefore, all I can do is to continue to try to explain. Please remember what I have explained in this thread is exactly what I said in the beginning: “It is an answer that I personally find to be much more satisfying than any other.” You criticize my answer but you provide no answer, satisfying or not, of your own. You just knock mine. No, I did not expect everyone to agree and to understand and to say to me what I humorously said to you above. Your lack of acceptance of the ‘whys,’ as I have explained them, is not surprising to me nor does your criticizing them prove anything. I guess what I am trying to get said is perhaps we both must accept that there will be things that we simply cannot understand about the other’s position. I say that and still want to try again. You say: “I see what you're saying here, but there's a problem: how long does it take an omnipotent being to destroy evil and end suffering? Hypothetically, an omnipotent being could do it instantaneously. If the "process" takes thousands of years, it can only be because the omnipotent being wanted it to take thousands of years. This would mean that thousands of years of suffering, evil, imperfection, etc. happen because God wills it to happen. In other words, you cast God (though you may not realize it) as malevolent (or at the very least, indifferent).” I say: If omnipotence were the only consideration you would have a point, but it is not. If the issues raised had simply been questions of power you are right to theorize that everything should be settled by now. But that is not the case! That is the point of this whole thread and you seem to being ignoring that, why is that? Let me refresh your memory: “He [Satan] questioned their need to depend upon the Creator for continued life and happiness. In fact, he told them that disobedience would actually improve matters for them, causing them to be like God. Thus he called into question the truthfulness of God. And by calling into question God’s laws, he cast doubt on God’s way of ruling, in fact, on God’s right to rule. For this he was called Satan, which means resister, and Devil, which means slanderer.” “Again for emphasis and clarification, what was the point of what Satan said? For one thing the Devil challenged God’s honesty. Reflect on the implications of this. If God were not truthful in this matter, could he be trusted in anything else? Would his creatures on earth or in heaven always have to be suspicious about what God said? We know today how suspicious persons are of politicians who govern through the use of lies. (Compare Psalm 5:9) Satan’s claim that God is deceitful and withholds things that are good for his creatures also raised the issue, does God deserve to rule? The question of the rightfulness of God’s way of ruling involved all creation. Additionally, Satan was contending that humans could get along without God, that they can and should rule themselves. The question was put before men and angels: Can humans successfully govern their affairs independent of God?” “Because God is so much stronger, he could easily have wiped out these human and spirit rebels in an instant and right at the start. But that would not have settled matters satisfactorily. Why not? Because it was not God’s strength that was challenged, the issues raised were moral ones. And a vital issue among them was this: Would the way of rebellion prove successful? Could rulership that ignored God bring lasting benefits to the entire human family? Would God’s rulership of man be better for mankind or would man’s independent rulership be better? God, in his wisdom, knew that this, and other key issues raised, would take time to settle. So he allowed a definite period of time that would give humans ample opportunity to arrive at the peak of their political, social, industrial and scientific achievements.” .
|
|
#89
11-23-2004, 02:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
continuation of the above
There is much more, do you remember Job? Do you remember what God did for Job afterwards? Do you understand what that means for our future? All that information is in the Bible, placed there by God, so that anyone sincerely asking “Why?” would have an answer and so that they could put their hearts and minds at ease especially when they realize that God will undo it all. I am sorry that you choose to ignore “that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Acts 24:15) That is just one of the many ways that God will use to undo and set right after the issues have been totally settled.
I could go on, but instead let’s play ‘what if’ and consider the scenario you propose. First, let’s review the circumstances: (1) God’s standards of love and wisdom and justice and perfection required that his creatures possess independent thinking (exercised within proper limits) (2) there were already billions of lives at stake, the heavenly races of intelligent creatures, that are observing this play out (Job 38:4,7 “Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell [me], if you do know understanding. . . . When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, and all the sons of God began shouting in applause?”). (3) God has already had the earth prepared and had man and woman placed on it and has given them this command (Genesis 1:28): “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.” (4) The implications are clear (Psalm 37:29 says: “The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.” And also Isaiah 45:18 says that: “God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, . . . did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited.”): God wanted humans to live forever in happiness on earth. Was the joyfulness of those “sons of God” who watched the preparation of the earth to end in disappointment? Was God’s stated purpose for the earth and mankind to fail? No, for if God did not accomplish what he purposed, if he did anything other than what he did, he would be admitting defeat. That he could never do! “The One telling from the beginning the finale, and from long ago the things that have not been done; the One saying, ‘My own counsel will stand, and everything that is my delight I shall do’; the One calling from the sunrising a bird of prey, from a distant land the man to execute my counsel. I have even spoken [it]; I shall also bring it in. I have formed [it], I shall also do it,” is what he declares at Isaiah 46:10, 11. And at Isaiah 55:11 he says, “so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.” The result of doing things any other way would have undermined his Godship. Now let’s consider other implications of doing things as you have proposed. How would those onlookers have answered these questions: Was Satan telling the truth? Was God actually withholding something of benefit and to which the three rebels had a “right”? Is it proper that we can never know the answers to those questions because God plays by the rule “might makes right”? ‘What if’ God immediately exercised his power and destroyed the three rebels? What would that have proved? Would that not be, in effect, saying, “I cannot handle this problem so the only solution is to throw up my hands and destroy these rebels”? What would be the message in that to the angels? In reality would not God have to admit total defeat and have to destroy those billions of angels who were also “flawed” by free will? Where is the justice in that? I have already discussed why I believe that God could and did create his creatures with free will and its inherent possibility for abuse and yet is not responsible for those abuses. Perhaps what you are asking for is more explanation of how that can be. Is that what you what from me? Am I just so out of practice that I am missing what it is you want? Probably. You say: “Also, it would help if you would please identify which epoch in human (or hominid?) history you believe to have been "perfect". ....Pretty please?” I say: Like it or not, you have my answer. You can ask again but I do not know any answer but the one already given. Perhaps you are trying to make some point that you picked up from debating creationists, but since I am not a creationist it is not striking a chord with me. If you have a point I suggest that you go ahead and make it. I realize that all the above probably seems foolish to someone that believes as you do. I realize that you will just turn around and ask the same question again (because your reasoning makes so much sense to you that you cannot understand why it does not to me also [been there done that]) expecting to get a different answer. There is nothing I can do about that other than repeat what I have already said. Or perhaps you will again try to “criticize the argument that giving humans the ability to do evil is somehow more "good" than preventing humans from doing evil” without realizing what you are arguing that we give up or that God not give us in the first place. Be my guest. I enjoy this even though I believe we are going around in circles. In politics sometimes one party accuses the other of ‘refusing to solve a problem so that they can retain it as an issue’. ‘What if’ that is going on here? I hope not. Again I say: “It is an answer that I personally find to be much more satisfying than any other.” In that statement I tell you exactly what it will take to reach me—provide me with an even more satisfying answer than the one I already have. Can you do it? So far, about all you have done is try to tear mine down and you have offered very little in the exchange. Because it is part of my favorite book let me end by quoting Proverbs 27:17: “By iron, iron itself is sharpened. So one man sharpens the face of another.” You are a good and worthy adversary Mr_Spinkles. .
|
|
#90
11-24-2004, 05:45 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mr. Hogcaller,
If I'm following your thesis, the whole Bible is an extension of the ideas in Job (Job was assigned reading in my 1964 sophmore public High School English class- how times have changed!), in other words, God created man and the world as a perfect game. We're here for the amusement of the Almighty and his angels, in a wager with Satan that we will or won't be compliant with His rules. He destroyed us all once for not measuring up (with a flood), and promised to do it again (with a fire). We can suffer all kinds of indignities and afflictions like Job, but they're really just a test of our piousness and obedience, in the end the best players get placed on God's side of the board. He can't lose, having designed the game. Is that about right?
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
