-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Why? Why? WHY?!" a direct quote from Ceridwen018 and many others
- Thread starter HOGCALLER
- Start date
Master Vigil
The Sacred Scriptures constitute a perfect message from God, refined, pure, and true. (Psalm 12:6; 119:140, 160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17) Though thousands of years of copying have evidently brought some variations from the original writings, these variations are admittedly very minor, so that, even if our present copies and translations are not absolutely flawless, the divine message conveyed is.
Individuals may find the Bible a more difficult book to read than many, one requiring greater effort and concentration; they may find much they do not understand. Some critical persons may insist that, to be perfect, the Bible should be free of even superficial differences or what appear, according to their standards, to be inconsistencies. None of these things, however, detract from the perfection of the Sacred Scriptures. For the real gauge of its perfection is its measuring up to the standards of excellence set by God, its accomplishing the end or purpose that he, as its true Author, appointed for it, as well as its being free from falsehood, as the published Word of the God of truth. The apostle Paul points up the perfection of the holy writings in saying: All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17) What the Hebrew Scriptures did for the nation of Israel when they observed them, what the completed Scriptures did for the Christian congregation in the first century, and what the Bible can do for persons in the present, is convincing proof of its qualities as an ideal instrument of God to accomplish his purpose.
The whole tenor of the Scriptures, including the teachings of Gods Son, is to the effect that the gaining of understanding of Gods purposes, the doing of his will, and the attaining of salvation to life are dependent primarily upon the individuals heart. (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Proverbs 4:23; 21:2; Matthew 15:8; Luke 8:5-15; Romans 10:10) The Bible is unique in its ability to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart, revealing what the person really is. (Hebrews 4:12, 13) It is clear from the Scriptures that God has not made knowledge of himself something to be acquired without effort. (Compare Proverbs 2:1-14; 8:32-36; Isaiah 55:6-11; Matthew 7:7, 8) It is also evident that God has caused his purposes to be revealed to humble ones and hidden from haughty ones, because to do thus came to be the way approved by him. (Matthew 11:25-27; 13:10-15; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; James 4:6) So, the fact that individuals whose hearts do not respond to the Bibles message can find things in the Scriptures that, in their opinion, justify their rejection of its message, its reproof, and its discipline does not show any imperfection on the part of the Bible. Rather, it illustrates the Scriptural points just made and hence demonstrates the perfection of the Bible in the view of its Author, whose view alone is decisive. (Isaiah 29:13, 14; John 9:39; acts 28:23-27; Romans 1:28) The things relating to Gods Word and way that the worldly-wise deem foolish or weak are proved by time and test to be of superior wisdom and strength compared to the theories, philosophies, and reasonings of human detractors. (1 Corinthians 1:22-25; 1 Peter 1:24, 25)
Faith remains an essential requirement for the understanding and appreciation of Gods perfect Word. The individual may feel that certain details and explanations should be in the Bible, revealing why, in specific cases, God gave approval or disapproval or why he took a particular course of action; the individual also may feel that other details found in the Bible are superfluous. Yet he should realize that if the Bible conformed to human standards or criteria, such as his own, this would not prove it divinely perfect. Exposing the falsity of such an attitude, God declares the superiority of his thoughts and ways to those of humans, and he assures that his word will have certain success in the fulfillment of his purpose. (Isaiah 55:8-11; Psalm 119:89) That is what perfection means. And it applies to the Bible.
The Sacred Scriptures constitute a perfect message from God, refined, pure, and true. (Psalm 12:6; 119:140, 160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17) Though thousands of years of copying have evidently brought some variations from the original writings, these variations are admittedly very minor, so that, even if our present copies and translations are not absolutely flawless, the divine message conveyed is.
Individuals may find the Bible a more difficult book to read than many, one requiring greater effort and concentration; they may find much they do not understand. Some critical persons may insist that, to be perfect, the Bible should be free of even superficial differences or what appear, according to their standards, to be inconsistencies. None of these things, however, detract from the perfection of the Sacred Scriptures. For the real gauge of its perfection is its measuring up to the standards of excellence set by God, its accomplishing the end or purpose that he, as its true Author, appointed for it, as well as its being free from falsehood, as the published Word of the God of truth. The apostle Paul points up the perfection of the holy writings in saying: All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:15-17) What the Hebrew Scriptures did for the nation of Israel when they observed them, what the completed Scriptures did for the Christian congregation in the first century, and what the Bible can do for persons in the present, is convincing proof of its qualities as an ideal instrument of God to accomplish his purpose.
The whole tenor of the Scriptures, including the teachings of Gods Son, is to the effect that the gaining of understanding of Gods purposes, the doing of his will, and the attaining of salvation to life are dependent primarily upon the individuals heart. (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Proverbs 4:23; 21:2; Matthew 15:8; Luke 8:5-15; Romans 10:10) The Bible is unique in its ability to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart, revealing what the person really is. (Hebrews 4:12, 13) It is clear from the Scriptures that God has not made knowledge of himself something to be acquired without effort. (Compare Proverbs 2:1-14; 8:32-36; Isaiah 55:6-11; Matthew 7:7, 8) It is also evident that God has caused his purposes to be revealed to humble ones and hidden from haughty ones, because to do thus came to be the way approved by him. (Matthew 11:25-27; 13:10-15; 1 Corinthians 2:6-16; James 4:6) So, the fact that individuals whose hearts do not respond to the Bibles message can find things in the Scriptures that, in their opinion, justify their rejection of its message, its reproof, and its discipline does not show any imperfection on the part of the Bible. Rather, it illustrates the Scriptural points just made and hence demonstrates the perfection of the Bible in the view of its Author, whose view alone is decisive. (Isaiah 29:13, 14; John 9:39; acts 28:23-27; Romans 1:28) The things relating to Gods Word and way that the worldly-wise deem foolish or weak are proved by time and test to be of superior wisdom and strength compared to the theories, philosophies, and reasonings of human detractors. (1 Corinthians 1:22-25; 1 Peter 1:24, 25)
Faith remains an essential requirement for the understanding and appreciation of Gods perfect Word. The individual may feel that certain details and explanations should be in the Bible, revealing why, in specific cases, God gave approval or disapproval or why he took a particular course of action; the individual also may feel that other details found in the Bible are superfluous. Yet he should realize that if the Bible conformed to human standards or criteria, such as his own, this would not prove it divinely perfect. Exposing the falsity of such an attitude, God declares the superiority of his thoughts and ways to those of humans, and he assures that his word will have certain success in the fulfillment of his purpose. (Isaiah 55:8-11; Psalm 119:89) That is what perfection means. And it applies to the Bible.
Ronald
You say: Hogcaller, I really liked your story until you used an unfortunate word,"selfcentered" this is a defect and they were perfect. Eve was the weak link , she had only Adams word of "don't eat" Seeing it looked good and having free will she simplely had two choices, resist temptation and obey God or to give in to temptation and be disobedient. She as her own moral agent chose wrong. The most awful part was that God gave them a chance to repent. Which they didn't.
The rest, as they say is history
I say: Please review all the above for you have missed something! The above information helps us to understand how perfect creatures of God could become disobedient. To view this as incompatible with perfection is to ignore the meaning of the term, substituting a personal concept that goes contrary to fact. Gods intelligent creatures are granted free moral agency, the privilege and responsibility of making a personal decision as to the course they will take. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20; Joshua 24:15) It is evident that this was the case with the first human pair, so that their devotion to God could be subject to test. (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:2, 3) As their Maker, God knew what he wanted of them, and from the Scriptures it is clear that he wanted, not an automatic, virtually mechanical obedience, but worship and service that sprang from hearts and minds motivated by genuine love. (Compare Deuteronomy 30:15, 16; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 29:17; John 4:23, 24) If Adam and his wife had lacked the ability to choose in this matter, they would not have met Gods requirements; they would not have been complete, perfect, according to his standards.
Again, it must be remembered that perfection as it relates to humans is a relative perfection, limited to the human sphere. Though created perfect, Adam could not go beyond the limits assigned him by his Creator; he could not eat dirt, gravel, or wood without suffering ill effects; if he tried to breathe water instead of air, he would drown. Similarly, if he allowed his mind and heart to feed on wrong thoughts, this would lead to entertaining wrong desires and finally bring sin and death. (James 1:14, 15; compare Genesis 1:29; Matthew 4:4)
That the creatures individual will and choice are determining factors readily becomes evident. If we were to insist that a perfect man could not take a wrong course where a moral issue was involved, should we not also logically argue that an imperfect creature could not take a right course where such moral issue was involved? Yet some imperfect creatures do take a right course on moral issues involving obedience to God, even choosing to suffer persecution rather than change from such a course; while at the same time others deliberately engage in doing what they know is wrong. Thus not all wrong actions can be excused by human imperfection. The individuals will and choice are deciding factors. In the same way, it was not human perfection alone that would guarantee right action by the first man but, rather, the exercise of his own free will and choice as motivated by love for his God and for what was right. (Proverbs 4:23)
Ronald, do you contend that Jesus was not actually tempted by Satan? (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) No doubt Jesus fully understood all aspects of each temptation. Did his understanding the full implications and possibilities of those temptations mean that he was not perfect? No, being perfect does not mean being above temptation. So, when did Adam and Eve become and perfect? James answers: When under trial, let no one say: I am being tried by God. For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death. (James 1:13-15) So the stinkin thinkin, the bad thoughts precede the actual sin! Therefore, Adam and Eve indulged in self-centered thinking before they committed the actual sin.
You say: Hogcaller, I really liked your story until you used an unfortunate word,"selfcentered" this is a defect and they were perfect. Eve was the weak link , she had only Adams word of "don't eat" Seeing it looked good and having free will she simplely had two choices, resist temptation and obey God or to give in to temptation and be disobedient. She as her own moral agent chose wrong. The most awful part was that God gave them a chance to repent. Which they didn't.
The rest, as they say is history
I say: Please review all the above for you have missed something! The above information helps us to understand how perfect creatures of God could become disobedient. To view this as incompatible with perfection is to ignore the meaning of the term, substituting a personal concept that goes contrary to fact. Gods intelligent creatures are granted free moral agency, the privilege and responsibility of making a personal decision as to the course they will take. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20; Joshua 24:15) It is evident that this was the case with the first human pair, so that their devotion to God could be subject to test. (Genesis 2:15-17; 3:2, 3) As their Maker, God knew what he wanted of them, and from the Scriptures it is clear that he wanted, not an automatic, virtually mechanical obedience, but worship and service that sprang from hearts and minds motivated by genuine love. (Compare Deuteronomy 30:15, 16; 1 Chronicles 28:9; 29:17; John 4:23, 24) If Adam and his wife had lacked the ability to choose in this matter, they would not have met Gods requirements; they would not have been complete, perfect, according to his standards.
Again, it must be remembered that perfection as it relates to humans is a relative perfection, limited to the human sphere. Though created perfect, Adam could not go beyond the limits assigned him by his Creator; he could not eat dirt, gravel, or wood without suffering ill effects; if he tried to breathe water instead of air, he would drown. Similarly, if he allowed his mind and heart to feed on wrong thoughts, this would lead to entertaining wrong desires and finally bring sin and death. (James 1:14, 15; compare Genesis 1:29; Matthew 4:4)
That the creatures individual will and choice are determining factors readily becomes evident. If we were to insist that a perfect man could not take a wrong course where a moral issue was involved, should we not also logically argue that an imperfect creature could not take a right course where such moral issue was involved? Yet some imperfect creatures do take a right course on moral issues involving obedience to God, even choosing to suffer persecution rather than change from such a course; while at the same time others deliberately engage in doing what they know is wrong. Thus not all wrong actions can be excused by human imperfection. The individuals will and choice are deciding factors. In the same way, it was not human perfection alone that would guarantee right action by the first man but, rather, the exercise of his own free will and choice as motivated by love for his God and for what was right. (Proverbs 4:23)
Ronald, do you contend that Jesus was not actually tempted by Satan? (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) No doubt Jesus fully understood all aspects of each temptation. Did his understanding the full implications and possibilities of those temptations mean that he was not perfect? No, being perfect does not mean being above temptation. So, when did Adam and Eve become and perfect? James answers: When under trial, let no one say: I am being tried by God. For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death. (James 1:13-15) So the stinkin thinkin, the bad thoughts precede the actual sin! Therefore, Adam and Eve indulged in self-centered thinking before they committed the actual sin.
A clarification!!
Ronald, do you contend that Jesus was not actually tempted by Satan? (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) No doubt Jesus fully understood all aspects of each temptation. Did his understanding the full implications and possibilities of those temptations mean that he was not perfect? No, being perfect does not mean being above temptation (unless you are God). So, when did Adam and Eve become sinful and imperfect? James answers: When under trial, let no one say: I am being tried by God. For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death. (James 1:13-15) So the stinkin thinkin, the bad thoughts precede the actual sin! Therefore, Adam and Eve indulged in self-centered thinking before they committed the actual sin and while they were still perfect. They still could have corrected their 'bad thinking' and remained loyal to God and they would have remained perfect, without sin.
Ronald, do you contend that Jesus was not actually tempted by Satan? (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) No doubt Jesus fully understood all aspects of each temptation. Did his understanding the full implications and possibilities of those temptations mean that he was not perfect? No, being perfect does not mean being above temptation (unless you are God). So, when did Adam and Eve become sinful and imperfect? James answers: When under trial, let no one say: I am being tried by God. For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death. (James 1:13-15) So the stinkin thinkin, the bad thoughts precede the actual sin! Therefore, Adam and Eve indulged in self-centered thinking before they committed the actual sin and while they were still perfect. They still could have corrected their 'bad thinking' and remained loyal to God and they would have remained perfect, without sin.
standing_on_one_foot,
Sorry I missed this question:
You say: Hey, a question...would Adam and Eve ever have had kids if they stayed in the Garden?
I say: ABSOLUTELY! For they were under God's command to do so. Follow this link!
Sorry I missed this question:
You say: Hey, a question...would Adam and Eve ever have had kids if they stayed in the Garden?
I say: ABSOLUTELY! For they were under God's command to do so. Follow this link!
Hogcaller, I mean what I said, no therefores, buts or maybes.
Self-centeredness is a defect they were perfect, made a bad choice.
I never spoke of Yeshua/Jesus, the "firster" Adam. Yeshua was tempted and made the better choice, He was obedient to God. He remained perfect, remained the holy calling and became the lamb of God.
Self-centeredness is a defect they were perfect, made a bad choice.
I never spoke of Yeshua/Jesus, the "firster" Adam. Yeshua was tempted and made the better choice, He was obedient to God. He remained perfect, remained the holy calling and became the lamb of God.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
"Perfection of any other person or thing, then, is relative, not absolute."
Perfection can not be relative. For one perfection can not negate another. Perfection is perfection. When you use different ambiguous connotations for words only proves the theory that the bible in itself is also ambiguous and imperfect.
"Individuals may find the Bible a more difficult book to read than many, one requiring greater effort and concentration; they may find much they do not understand."
I find it supremely easier to read than alot of things. Try reading zen koans, those are very difficult to understand.
"Some critical persons may insist that, to be perfect, the Bible should be free of even superficial differences or what appear, according to their standards, to be inconsistencies. None of these things, however, detract from the perfection of the Sacred Scriptures."
I think it is the other way around. I think that if a thing is indeed perfect, there would be NO superficial differences. NO differences at all. And there are many inconsistencies within the bible. I think that definitely detracts from its "perfection."
"What the Hebrew Scriptures did for the nation of Israel when they observed them, what the completed Scriptures did for the Christian congregation in the first century, and what the Bible can do for persons in the present, is convincing proof of its qualities as an ideal instrument of God to accomplish his purpose."
Indeed; massacreing of native americans, the crusades, and countless other horrible things have been done for the sake of that "holy" book. God must be proud.
"Faith remains an essential requirement for the understanding and appreciation of Gods perfect Word."
Hmmm... so who's faith is right? Catholic, lutheran, southern baptist, orthodox, etc...? The differing of faith only proves the subjectivity of the bible. And negating its credibility as "perfect."
"if the Bible conformed to human standards or criteria, such as his own, this would not prove it divinely perfect."
But again, it was written by humans using human standards. So you helped me prove against its divine perfection. Thanks. Remember, the bible was written over a long period of time by different people. It was changed by interpretation by the authors, and again changed by constantine during the council of nicaea. It was changed when translated, and is changed when every individual reads it. It is not divinely perfect. Or else all christians would believe the same. But alas, their individual interpretation allows its imperfection to show itself and allows all the denominations to flourish.
Perfection can not be relative. For one perfection can not negate another. Perfection is perfection. When you use different ambiguous connotations for words only proves the theory that the bible in itself is also ambiguous and imperfect.
"Individuals may find the Bible a more difficult book to read than many, one requiring greater effort and concentration; they may find much they do not understand."
I find it supremely easier to read than alot of things. Try reading zen koans, those are very difficult to understand.
"Some critical persons may insist that, to be perfect, the Bible should be free of even superficial differences or what appear, according to their standards, to be inconsistencies. None of these things, however, detract from the perfection of the Sacred Scriptures."
I think it is the other way around. I think that if a thing is indeed perfect, there would be NO superficial differences. NO differences at all. And there are many inconsistencies within the bible. I think that definitely detracts from its "perfection."
"What the Hebrew Scriptures did for the nation of Israel when they observed them, what the completed Scriptures did for the Christian congregation in the first century, and what the Bible can do for persons in the present, is convincing proof of its qualities as an ideal instrument of God to accomplish his purpose."
Indeed; massacreing of native americans, the crusades, and countless other horrible things have been done for the sake of that "holy" book. God must be proud.
"Faith remains an essential requirement for the understanding and appreciation of Gods perfect Word."
Hmmm... so who's faith is right? Catholic, lutheran, southern baptist, orthodox, etc...? The differing of faith only proves the subjectivity of the bible. And negating its credibility as "perfect."
"if the Bible conformed to human standards or criteria, such as his own, this would not prove it divinely perfect."
But again, it was written by humans using human standards. So you helped me prove against its divine perfection. Thanks. Remember, the bible was written over a long period of time by different people. It was changed by interpretation by the authors, and again changed by constantine during the council of nicaea. It was changed when translated, and is changed when every individual reads it. It is not divinely perfect. Or else all christians would believe the same. But alas, their individual interpretation allows its imperfection to show itself and allows all the denominations to flourish.
Ronald,
You say: "Hogcaller, I mean what I said, no therefores, buts or maybes.
Self-centeredness is a defect they were perfect, made a bad choice.
I never spoke of Yeshua/Jesus, the "firster" Adam. Yeshua was tempted and made the better choice, He was obedient to God. He remained perfect, remained the holy calling and became the lamb of God."
I say: I have no doubt that you mean what you say. But you're being absolutely convinced of it does not necessarily make it so. Your assertions regarding Adam's perfection would also apply to the only other perfect man who ever lived, Jesus. You assert, without proof, that Adam could not have indulged in self-centered thinking because he was perfect. However, the Scriptures simply do not support your view. I say that because of what we know about Jesus, also a perfect man, and what happened to him. Therefore, let me ask you again, do you contend that Jesus was not actually tempted by Satan?
If Jesus was actually tempted, then he had to have thought about and entertained momentarily what the Tempter presented to him, correct? Otherwise, how could he have been tempted? Yes I do agree that he did not succumb to the temptation. He did not allow the process described in James to induce him into sin. However, Adam did. And according to James, what does that mean? It means that he indulged in self-centered thinking, just as Satan before him had done, until it moved him to commit sin. While perfect both Adam and Jesus recognized and understood fully the possibility of sinning. That in itself was not a sin nor a sign of imperfection. As you point out, Jesus made the right choice and immediately dismissed Satan and his ideas. However, Adam did not. Instead, he entertained the wrong ideas and he continued to think about the wrong things, self-centered things, until he succumbed to sin. Only at that point did he quit being perfect. As I stated above, he could have corrected his thinking, stopping the process that leads to sin, and he would have remained perfect and sinless.
Please answer the question: Did the fact that Jesus understood the full implications and possibilities of those temptations mean that he was not perfect? Does the fact that Jesus could be tempted indicate that he was imperfect?
Please provide scriptural support for any answers you provide.
You say: "Hogcaller, I mean what I said, no therefores, buts or maybes.
Self-centeredness is a defect they were perfect, made a bad choice.
I never spoke of Yeshua/Jesus, the "firster" Adam. Yeshua was tempted and made the better choice, He was obedient to God. He remained perfect, remained the holy calling and became the lamb of God."
I say: I have no doubt that you mean what you say. But you're being absolutely convinced of it does not necessarily make it so. Your assertions regarding Adam's perfection would also apply to the only other perfect man who ever lived, Jesus. You assert, without proof, that Adam could not have indulged in self-centered thinking because he was perfect. However, the Scriptures simply do not support your view. I say that because of what we know about Jesus, also a perfect man, and what happened to him. Therefore, let me ask you again, do you contend that Jesus was not actually tempted by Satan?
If Jesus was actually tempted, then he had to have thought about and entertained momentarily what the Tempter presented to him, correct? Otherwise, how could he have been tempted? Yes I do agree that he did not succumb to the temptation. He did not allow the process described in James to induce him into sin. However, Adam did. And according to James, what does that mean? It means that he indulged in self-centered thinking, just as Satan before him had done, until it moved him to commit sin. While perfect both Adam and Jesus recognized and understood fully the possibility of sinning. That in itself was not a sin nor a sign of imperfection. As you point out, Jesus made the right choice and immediately dismissed Satan and his ideas. However, Adam did not. Instead, he entertained the wrong ideas and he continued to think about the wrong things, self-centered things, until he succumbed to sin. Only at that point did he quit being perfect. As I stated above, he could have corrected his thinking, stopping the process that leads to sin, and he would have remained perfect and sinless.
Please answer the question: Did the fact that Jesus understood the full implications and possibilities of those temptations mean that he was not perfect? Does the fact that Jesus could be tempted indicate that he was imperfect?
Please provide scriptural support for any answers you provide.
Just how does your Bible say Adam was created? In mine, in the image of God! As for PROOF, I was not there! were you? If you want something from me, don't beat around the bush!
Yeshua was perfect, knew perfectly well what hasatan offered, this had no effect on his being yet perfect and he made the perfect choice. Remained the perfect Lamb of God, perfectly capable of being Gods gift to mankind to bring man into perfection for His perfect Kingdom!
Have I answered your vague question?
Yeshua was perfect, knew perfectly well what hasatan offered, this had no effect on his being yet perfect and he made the perfect choice. Remained the perfect Lamb of God, perfectly capable of being Gods gift to mankind to bring man into perfection for His perfect Kingdom!
Have I answered your vague question?
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
Hogcaller -
Please don't cut your posts short. You would be better served if you took the time to complete your thought in a given post. :sarcastic
I stopped reading your posts about 2/3's of the way down page 1.
I give.
TVOR
Please don't cut your posts short. You would be better served if you took the time to complete your thought in a given post. :sarcastic
I stopped reading your posts about 2/3's of the way down page 1.
I give.
TVOR
Doc
Space Chief
I think a more mysterious and intriguing question which as occured to me several times is that, "Would we be here had it not been for Original Sin?" Of course Adam and Eve may have had children, but most likely we would not have been here because such terrible things as oppression and prejudice would not have caused my German great-grandparents and great grandparents from Slovakia to eventually immigrate to America. And generations later, their paths would not have crossed to create me. So in a twisted way, I can thank Adam and Eve for my own existance.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Why would God give humans the right/ability to govern themselves independently, but not give them the right/ability to govern themselves independently successfully? Why not just refuse humans the right/ability to govern themselves independently altgoether (thus preventing any possible evil that could come of it)? If your answer is "because that would violate our free will" I refer you back to my original question: Can God create a perfect world?Hogcaller said:
Ah yes, independent thinking--religion's ultimate faux pas. There should have been an eleventh commandment which read "Thou shalt not think for thyself".Hogcaller said:
Master Vigil,
May I respectfully suggest that you read my post!
I understand you have an opinion or rather a definition of perfection to which you are attached. If I am wrong correct me and provide scriptural support, but it is not a Bible based definition. You are entitled to your opinion and your definition, but they have little relevance to my argument based on the Bible and the definitions gleaned from the Scriptures and provided above. I would be happy to have you point out specifically where I have misapplied, misinterpreted or misunderstood any those scriptures.
If you want to argue your opinion against my opinion, well OK, but that reminds me of the Little Rascals:
You say: Perfection can not be relative.
And I say: Yeah, seez who?
And you say: Seez me!
And I say: Oh yeah?
And you say; Yeah!
Do not misunderstand me. You are entitled to your opinions! But so am I! Pointless isn't it?
You say: For one perfection can not negate another.
I say: What in the world does that mean?
You say: Perfection is perfection.
I say: Yeah, seez who?
You say: When you use different ambiguous connotations for words only proves the theory that the bible in itself is also ambiguous and imperfect.
I say: Really? Give me a specific example.
You say: I think it is the other way around. I think that if a thing is indeed perfect, there would be NO superficial differences. NO differences at all. And there are many inconsistencies within the bible. I think that definitely detracts from its "perfection."
I say: Yeah, seez who? I am sure your statements of opinion sound good to you but they carry no weight at all with me. Where is your proof?
You say: Indeed; massacreing of native americans, the crusades, and countless other horrible things have been done for the sake of that "holy" book. God must be proud.
I say: May I respectfully suggest that you read my post! I have already answered that.
You say: Hmmm... so who's faith is right? Catholic, lutheran, southern baptist, orthodox, etc...? The differing of faith only proves the subjectivity of the bible. And negating its credibility as "perfect."
I say: as I stated in my original post, that is another discussion for another time.
You say: But again, it was written by humans using human standards.
I say: Yeah, seez who? You are very much mistaken! Not only that, I provided scriptural proof, in my original post, that supports my saying so. What proof do you provide other than your opinion?
You say: Remember, the bible was written over a long period of time by different people. It was changed by interpretation by the authors, and again changed by constantine during the council of nicaea. It was changed when translated, and is changed when every individual reads it. It is not divinely perfect. Or else all christians would believe the same. But alas, their individual interpretation allows its imperfection to show itself and allows all the denominations to flourish.
I say: I have already answered that above. Either you didnt get it or you didn't bother to read it, which is it?
May I respectfully suggest that you read my post!
I understand you have an opinion or rather a definition of perfection to which you are attached. If I am wrong correct me and provide scriptural support, but it is not a Bible based definition. You are entitled to your opinion and your definition, but they have little relevance to my argument based on the Bible and the definitions gleaned from the Scriptures and provided above. I would be happy to have you point out specifically where I have misapplied, misinterpreted or misunderstood any those scriptures.
If you want to argue your opinion against my opinion, well OK, but that reminds me of the Little Rascals:
You say: Perfection can not be relative.
And I say: Yeah, seez who?
And you say: Seez me!
And I say: Oh yeah?
And you say; Yeah!
Do not misunderstand me. You are entitled to your opinions! But so am I! Pointless isn't it?
You say: For one perfection can not negate another.
I say: What in the world does that mean?
You say: Perfection is perfection.
I say: Yeah, seez who?
You say: When you use different ambiguous connotations for words only proves the theory that the bible in itself is also ambiguous and imperfect.
I say: Really? Give me a specific example.
You say: I think it is the other way around. I think that if a thing is indeed perfect, there would be NO superficial differences. NO differences at all. And there are many inconsistencies within the bible. I think that definitely detracts from its "perfection."
I say: Yeah, seez who? I am sure your statements of opinion sound good to you but they carry no weight at all with me. Where is your proof?
You say: Indeed; massacreing of native americans, the crusades, and countless other horrible things have been done for the sake of that "holy" book. God must be proud.
I say: May I respectfully suggest that you read my post! I have already answered that.
You say: Hmmm... so who's faith is right? Catholic, lutheran, southern baptist, orthodox, etc...? The differing of faith only proves the subjectivity of the bible. And negating its credibility as "perfect."
I say: as I stated in my original post, that is another discussion for another time.
You say: But again, it was written by humans using human standards.
I say: Yeah, seez who? You are very much mistaken! Not only that, I provided scriptural proof, in my original post, that supports my saying so. What proof do you provide other than your opinion?
You say: Remember, the bible was written over a long period of time by different people. It was changed by interpretation by the authors, and again changed by constantine during the council of nicaea. It was changed when translated, and is changed when every individual reads it. It is not divinely perfect. Or else all christians would believe the same. But alas, their individual interpretation allows its imperfection to show itself and allows all the denominations to flourish.
I say: I have already answered that above. Either you didnt get it or you didn't bother to read it, which is it?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Hogcaller-- Take care, friend. Here's hoping your time away is safe and pleasant. 
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
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.HOGCALLER said:
Like Spinkles, I wish you well while you are away.
Take care,
TVOR
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
"I understand you have an opinion or rather a definition of perfection to which you are attached. If I am wrong correct me and provide scriptural support, but it is not a Bible based definition."
This is exactly my point. The bible goes against logic in the sense of perfection. And I do not need scriptural support for my position. For that would only weeken it for scripture is illogical. My definition is that of countless theologians and logicians throughout the ages. Do not attack me personally, attack descartes, or even st. thomas aquinas.
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.
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.
If you allow the bibles definition of perfection to be ambiguous, than what stops the rest of the bible from being ambiguous? And anyone who takes a basic logic course knows that one of the formal fallacious arguments is one of ambiguity.
My statements of opinion are based on logic and factual data. Not an ambiguous argument taken from an ambiguous book. Perfection, not the bibles ambiguous definition but the real definition, does not allow imperfections of any kind. No discrepencies, no ambiguities, PERFECTION!!!!!
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.
This is exactly my point. The bible goes against logic in the sense of perfection. And I do not need scriptural support for my position. For that would only weeken it for scripture is illogical. My definition is that of countless theologians and logicians throughout the ages. Do not attack me personally, attack descartes, or even st. thomas aquinas.
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.
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.
If you allow the bibles definition of perfection to be ambiguous, than what stops the rest of the bible from being ambiguous? And anyone who takes a basic logic course knows that one of the formal fallacious arguments is one of ambiguity.
My statements of opinion are based on logic and factual data. Not an ambiguous argument taken from an ambiguous book. Perfection, not the bibles ambiguous definition but the real definition, does not allow imperfections of any kind. No discrepencies, no ambiguities, PERFECTION!!!!!
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.