Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
In a vacuum, they aren't related. But we're talking about a theological proposition for God, in which they are interrelated. If you want to propose a different theological construct, you're welcome to do so, but I don't think, at that point, you could then call it "the Abrahamic God," unless you could provide airtight biblical and Talmudic/doctrinal bases for such a construct.
God as a fortune teller? This is an interesting definition of knowledge with which you are working. Please expand. If god chooses not to know, then he doesn't know. If he doesn't know he cannot be omniscient by definition.
God's original purpose for the first human couple was to "Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth." (Genesis 1:28)
You're deluding yourself and don't understand either the metaphoric nature of the stories, or the nuances of meaning inherent in the original languages, if that's what you really think.
When Arkansas gained statehood?
The Bible reveals early humans lived hundreds of years. Adam lived 930 years. (Genesis 5:5) By Moses day, the normal lifespan had fallen to 70-80 years. (Psalm 90:10) Also, it would not have taken many generations for inbreeding to no longer be a potential problem. The first written prohibition of marrying close relatives was in the Mosaic Law, I think. (Leviticus 18)
Jesus Christ didn't consider the account of Adam to be metaphoric.(Matthew 19:5,6) I believe such an unwarranted interpretation is actually a repudiation of true Christian teaching. (Romans 5:12)
Omniscient. If he doesn't know, even by choice, he isn't it.
They couldn't sin in that instance, though, because "God knows man's heart" and withOUT a sense of knowledge of good and evil, it's IMPOSSIBLE to sin. You can be a screw-up, sure, but not a sinner, which is why God DIDN'T kill them and let them live absurdly long lives and create the human race.
It's WORSE than not knowing. It's willfull negligence.
God set the lifespan but we still have people who can, on rare occasion, get past that. I guess He stopped caring? And how did people live long lives after the Flood, when is where God set the new standard? Did He forget?
Where did Jesus say it was literal? Just because he referenced a story doesn't make it literal. If I quote Harry Potter that doesn't make it literal history.
Sorry that's a complete assertion and solely your interpretation. Many people consider God to be a personal being. Many people and theologians say God is all powerful and all good. SOme say he is only maximally powerful and good. Saying God is being itself is MEANINGLESS. At least, I have no clue what you're talking about and have never heard people say that God is the attribute itself. Don't chalk it up to mystery either. Furthermore Rejecting the argument a theologically untenable because it contradicts your ideas of theology and its definition is ridiculous. Again, even if this was the only theological perspective, it still doesn't supersede logical consistency. Define the different terms including what God is being means.
Yeah i'm confused about this theology i'm arguing against. I have no idea which theology you're even talking about since there are many. I only said I was arguing against the abrhamaic faiths in general and in particular the case made where God is all good, all powerful, and all knowing but also tests humans. This is a pretty common theological perspective. Epicurus' argument also isn't arguing against one particular theology so please be clearer which of the thousands of interpretations you're tlaking about. I can't read your mind.
But the argument presupposes the existence of God as its hypothesis and religious people mostly agree that with God there is an absolute/objective morality. Based on these assumptions, the argument is meant to show the possible outcomes in such a situation which all lead to theologically unfavorable conclusions. So yeah the argument presupposes God exists and there are morals but the point of the argument isn't to disprove God, its to show the problematic conclusions from these hypotheses. I mean unless you're arguing that God doesn't have an absolute morality then this point seems fairly moot.
Ugh, this again? I said it seems like which means it seems like to me. Seems implies my personal experience and limited knowledge. Plus it was an expression anyways to mean a lot of people. Have you ever heard: God it seems like everyone these days is a bad driver. That's just an expression--it doesn't mean that person thinks all drivers are bad. I mean so far only two people have had a problem with this so clearly people recognize that it is actually just an expression.
