1. 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!

Christians..."Trinity"?

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by captainbryce, Jun 15, 2013.

  1. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57
    So what possible world is there at which God would be "capable of being corrupted, AND is?" If God is capable of being corrupted, then there is a possible world at which he is corrupted, thus making him NOT omnibenevolent.

    Ok that may be true, but since we are NOT talking horses and blah blah blah, that would make the fact that we AREN'T talking horses rather contingent, now wouldn't it? So since we are contingent and God is necessary, that would make your possible world analogy irrelevant, huh?

    To God, or to man?

    And you also believe that any given person that is born can live 33 years and not commit one single sin, right?

    So if there is a possible world at which Jesus would sin, who would be his Savior?

    So if there is a possible world at which God would sin, you are saying that there is a possible world at which God would stop being God, which is absurd.

    The devil? Ohh, you mean that one guy that rebelled against the Almighty God knowing that he wouldn't win??? That same guy? If he rebelled against God, why is it absurd to think that he wouldn't attempt to tempt Jesus in his weakened state?
     
  2. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
    Oh, so now Jesus CAN be tempted when he's in a "Weakened state". So now you, in your own words, just basically said Jesus COULD be tempted in a "Weakened state". Well there we have it, from the horses' mouth. I Don't see what rebelling against God even though he couldn't win has to do with it. Was he unaware that he couldn't win? Was he unaware that Jesus couldn't sin?

    By the way, the logic that God would not be God if he sinned is absurd. It's another example of non-scriptural abstract concepts.
     
    #342 Shermana, Nov 13, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2013
  3. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57
    Actually what I said was "If he rebelled against God, why is it absurd to think that he wouldn't attempt to tempt Jesus in his weakened state?" Keyword: Attempt. So my emphasis was on the ATTEMPT and the foolishness that came with it.

    Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. You guys are the ones asking why would the devil try to tempt Jesus if Jesus couldn't be tempted, as if you know that he knew. Well, I am asking why would he rebel against the Almighty if he knew that he wouldn't win in the long run...also assuming that he knew.

    Sherm, you don't agree that a sinful God is not a omnibenevolent God?
     
  4. captainbryce

    captainbryce Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    901
    Ratings:
    +23
    Again, why WOULDN'T I? It seems that you are unable to answer this very basic questions, a question to which the answer destroys your entire argument.

    Of course I am. Because the bible very plainly states that they observed "all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly". It doesn't say SOME, or MOST, it says ALL! Therefore, there is no biblical basis for assuming that they were in fact sinners, who occasionally or previously did not observe all the Lord's commands and decrees. Beyond that, even according to your own logic, IF they were once sinners and God later considered them "blameless", why would they still have to die if they were no longer to blame? :confused:

    The logical assumption is that they lived "blameless" lives throughout their lives (unless there is something that directly contradicts that). Psalm 18 certainly implies that it is indeed possible to live "blameless lives".

    Psalm 18:22-24
    22 All his laws are before me;
    I have not turned away from his decrees.
    23 I have been blameless before him
    and have kept myself from sin
    .
    24 The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness,
    according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight.

    That is a non-sequitur! They WERE morally perfect UNTIL they sinned! At that point, they were no longer morally perfect, and therefore would not have been able to atone for our deaths.

    No, that's YOUR definition of what it means to be morally perfect. My definition of morally perfect as it pertains to any of God's creations is "free from sin". And that is how the bible describes Lucifer before the fall. It says that he had the seal of perfection before wickedness was found in him. God does not create any being that is imperfect. They become imperfect when they sin against!

    You're creating a false dichotomy! God is also a living spirit, just as we are a living spirit. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we are on his level! It just means that we have a quality in common with God, not that we are on the same level as he is.

    It would! Because they are still genetically imperfect (being offspring of Adam and Eve). Adam and Eve were sinners, so anyone born from them is affected by their sins. That's why Paul says that death came to all, "even those who did not sin". They are still considered sinners because of original sin. Which goes back to my question: Do you believe in the concept of original sin, and that our deaths are required to atone for original sin?

    But that's not what the bible says. The bible says that sin spread to the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin. It says that life is granted through the sacrifice of another man (Christ). The difference between Adam and Christ was that Adam sinned and Christ did not. We were all born from the line of Adam, therefore we must all die! We will all die whether we commit any sins or not because we are all came from Adam. Even the men who God deemed as blameless (even if they had BECOME that way and didn't originally start out that way originally), they still died! Why would God call them "blameless" and then still require them to die for their own sins? That doesn't make any sense! The logical conclusion is that even the "blameless" people are still genetically tainted through the sins of their ancestor (Adam), and consequently must still die.

    How could he not know? You claim to "know" that Christ was incapable of sinning. So why would you know something that Satan (someone who was actually in the presence of Christ) didn't know? Satan knew the scriptures because he quoted them, and he obviously knew who Christ was (otherwise why would he single him out to be tempted)? But what I'm asking is, why would this story even be recorded at all if the assumption was that Christ could NOT be tempted? It becomes a waste of time!

    That was a very clever way of dodging the question. So I'll repeat it until you can actually provide an answer.

    Where do you derive the notion that God intentionally created man to be "morally imperfect"? If God is "good", then why would God do this? If your answer is that he wouldn't do this, then your argument is self defeating! Man WAS morally perfect because God created him to be morally perfect. The only alternative is that God created man morally IMPERFECT. So which one is it according to you?

    A) Because people are not judged by what they CAN do, they are judged by what they actually DO. [Revelation 20:13].

    B) Because assuming that any being capable of sinning is automatically morally perfect is saying that God intentionally created beings to me morally imperfect. Do you believe God did this?

    YES. And that's exactly what we call them! We only call it imperfect when a defect is noted. :sarcastic

    I gave you a direct response. Your analogy is a failure because it belies the central question at hand: DID GOD CREATE MORALLY IMPERFECT BEINGS? The answer is either yes or no! And if you cannot answer this question, then I'll consider that a concession! In order for your basketball analogy to have any validity, you have to first acknowledge that God intentionally created morally imperfect beings. :yes:

    What is your answer?

    No you haven't. Your answer was another question: "Maybe he didn't know? Why assume he knew?". A question to which I have provided a response. Therefore, I'd like you to now answer my response.

    It doesn't matter what is sounds like TO YOU, it only matters what the scripture actually says! And in this case, the scriptures clearly say that the devil was the "seal of perfection" when God created him! So unless you are calling this a lie, I don't see how you can argue against it. This is clear biblical evidence that scripture defines "perfection" as one who has not committed any sins, not as one who is incapable of sin (which is your definition). You keep accusing me of "equivocating the word perfect", but where is your evidence of this? You cannot justify this argument as anything more than semantics. Perfection means perfection! If you can provide a scripture that proves it is implied in a different context here, by all means do so. Otherwise, you have no case and are just making an argument of semantics.

    The only "morally perfect" beings that God created were Adam, Eve, Jesus and all the angels (including Satan). Everyone else born from man is morally imperfect (because they came from Adam after he sinned). Being tainted by sin means that we were born from Adam (who sinned). The bible is clear that we inherited his imperfection (death spread to the world through one man) and because of that, we must all die. That has nothing to do with whether or not we choose to sin or not. You can commit no sins throughout your entire lifetime and be considered "blameless" by God, but you will still be imperfect because you were born from the line of Adam (a sinner). Thus you will still die! Thus, we can never be morally perfect until we die, and are resurrected to life by Christ. That is what his death on the cross accomplishes! It atones for all sin (including original sin).

    Only Jesus is morally perfect, because he was not born of Adam but through divine will (free from sin); not because he is God! Adam was also morally perfect because he was created directly by God, free of sin (just as Satan was). Yet, they both still chose to sin and thus became imperfect. This proves that perfect beings are capable of sin, and that they can become imperfect through sin!
     
  5. captainbryce

    captainbryce Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    901
    Ratings:
    +23
    Convenient. :rolleyes:

    In any case, you can consider that the reminder! So, if your intent is to CONTINUE insinuating that I am a JW, there is no reason for me to continue conversing with you. What's your pleasure? :shrug:
     
  6. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57
    If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck...it is probably a duck (shout out to Katz) lmao *inside joke*
     
  7. captainbryce

    captainbryce Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    901
    Ratings:
    +23
    Well, since you can't actually provide an answer to any of my questions, and the only thing you can do is continually accuse me of being a Jehovah's Witness (and then LIE about it after the fact), I no longer have any interest in discussing this matter with you. You claim to love Jesus, yet your comments towards me don't seem to support that. Suffice it to say, I believe I've successfully proven my point about why your interpretation is faulty, inconsistent, scriptural unsupportable, and relies on circular logic. Goodbye!
     
  8. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57


    Equivocating "perfect". Contingent perfection and necessary perfection are two diferrent things.

    All starting when? From conception? From fetus? Since birth? Since age 12? Since age 21? Since age 35? When did it start?

    I am not saying they were sinners, I am saying it is irrational to think that they lived their ENTIRE LIVES without committing one single sin.

    The same reason why Job eventually died. He was blameless too, right?

    Wait a minute, are those verses coming from the same guy that commited adultery with Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11) and took a census which resulted in the Lords burning anger against Israel (1 Chronicales 21)? So if we ARE to take your Psalm scriptures literally, then it directly contradicts the ones I just gave you.

    So, if Jesus had sinned, he would have been morally perfect UNTIL he sinned.

    But my point is based on the possibility that they COULD sin would make them not perfect. How can a car be perfect if at any moment the engine could blow? Just like the example I previously game, a guy can shoot 1000/1000 from the foul line…his percentage is perfect, but the man himself is not perfect because every attempt he has the same probability of missing, which would affect his “perfect” percentage. If the guy was actually perfect, he would NEVER miss nor would their be the possibility of him missing.

    If a man lives forever on this very earth, is it possible for this man to live a perfectly sinless life? If the answer is yes, then you ARE saying that it is possible for man to be on God’s level as far as moral perfection is concerned, and if that is the case, then Jesus wasn’t really that special now was he.

    The same thing I told Sherm; Satan also knew/know God, and he still rebelled against him, didn’t he? So apparently what Satan knows doesn’t mean jack squat.

    All I want to know is how something can be perfect if there is a chance it can become imperfect.

    First off, nowhere in the bible does it even say that man neither is perfect nor was man created perfect. So why do you keep making it seem as if that is the case, I don’t know, but that certainly isn’t what the bible says. The fact is apparent, God created man with free will, and with free will there is no perfection, because there is no guarantee that make will make the right decision every single time.
     
  9. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57
    And according to you, living a perfectly sinless life is something that man CAN do…yet Paul said we all sin and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23)/

    Bryce, pay close attention…God gave man free will, right? Now, since man has free will, man can make whatever decision he wants to, whether right, or wrong. The only way man could be created perfect would be for God to wipe away free will and be programmed to do only what God wanted him to do. Instead of this, man was created with free will to freely choose options A or B. If God created man to be perfect, and man became imperfect, that would mean that God made a mistake…kind of like creating an automobile to top max speed of 80 miles an hour, but instead it only runs 40 miles per hour. That is a mistake. God doesn’t make mistakes. He did not create man to be perfect, because if he did, man would be perfect. The very fact that man isn’t perfect means that our imperfection comes from the choices that we make, and this is inevitable as long as we have free will.

    Then the car wasn’t perfect in the first place!!!

    Cmon now bryce, the “seal of perfection” talk is just a figure of speech. If that is the case, then isn’t God himself also the “seal of perfection?” So was Satan on the same level of perfection as God? Yet Satan sinned…so that would mean that God could also sin, right? If both are the seal of perfection, yet one sinned and the other one different, does that mean that at any given moment the other one can also sin? If one sinned, why can’t the other, if they both have the seal of perfection? Makes no sense.

    So bryce…if you buy a brand new car that runs just fine, is your car perfect? Yes or no. Do you have a perfect car?

    I will show you how you are equivocating the word perfect by asking you some questions. The first question is; Is there a possible world at which God would commit a sin? Yes or no?

    But bryce, what you are saying cannot be true because if Satan and his followers sinned DESPITE being created morally perfect, then they are no different than the rest of us who WERE “tainted” by sin after being born from Adam. Tell me what is the difference????? Adam wasn’t “tainted” by sin, and he STILL sinned…and Satan wasn’t “tainted” by sin, and he also sinned…everyone else are “tainted” by sin, so we sin…either way you look at it, the end result is sin!!! So all of this “created morally perfect” stuff just doesn’t make sense. Not a single bit.

    So since Satan wasn’t born from the line of Adam, he will live??? If the criteria for death is being born in the line of Adam and thus sinful…if that is the criteria for death (minus the atonement), then Satan doesn’t qualify. Man oh man.
     
  10. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57
    Ahhh yes, that is the farewell I've always dreamed about...even as a kid. Hahahaha
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. FranklinMichaelV.3

    FranklinMichaelV.3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,616
    Ratings:
    +128
    Hmm... I guess that whole "son will not be punished for the sins of the father thing" only applies to humans. Or that time when Jesus healed that blind man and everyone was like "what sin did he or his parents commit?"
     
  12. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57
    It doesn't apply because the Son (Jesus) was not punished for the sins of the Father (Jehovah). Keep making bad assumptions and I will keep straight'ening you out, Frankie.
     
  13. FranklinMichaelV.3

    FranklinMichaelV.3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,616
    Ratings:
    +128
    Lol, If you think I was talking about Jesus, then you're wrong. Keep making incorrect assumptions and I'll be more than happy to correct you.

    Also Jehovah? You do realize that was an incorrect translation right?
     
  14. Call_of_the_Wild

    Call_of_the_Wild Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011
    Messages:
    3,397
    Ratings:
    +57
    Lol nice

    I was only trying to distinguish between Jesus and the Father...maybe i should of said Yeshua.
     
  15. FranklinMichaelV.3

    FranklinMichaelV.3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,616
    Ratings:
    +128
    You can easily say Jesus and God.

    or G-D if you really want to show reverence.
     
  16. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
    The word "God" is pretty much only ever used for the Father.

    Questionable verses like John 20:28 have explanations such as how even in the Dark Age it was regarded as an Exclamation rather than an addressing.
     
  17. BlandOatmeal

    BlandOatmeal Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    645
    Ratings:
    +11
    Shermana (and Franklin),

    Do you ever discuss anything other than the Trinity and the 613? There's only so much mileage one can get out of that. You and I are agreed concerning the Trinity; and as far as I can see, so is Franklin; although Frank seems more willing to accept all the scriptures than you are. That's no big deal with me: I accept both of you as brothers, and I would love to delve into an in-depth discussion with you two about something other than these endless, ancient no-win arguments.

    I am interested in end-time prophecies that are beginning to be fulfilled. Even more so, I would like some really thoughtful debate about God's nature -- beyond the ridiculous argument that He has three heads. Both of you, name your venue and pick a topic, please.
     
  18. FranklinMichaelV.3

    FranklinMichaelV.3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2013
    Messages:
    3,616
    Ratings:
    +128
    The end times would be interesting to discuss, though I really consider revelations to be a very political middle finger to the Roman Empire rather than an actual prophecy.

    Gods nature is always a fascinating one because I find it to be the one where people contradict themselves the most.
     
  19. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
    I discuss all kinds of topics if you didn't notice, including Canonical issues, manuscripts, church history, interpolations and redactions, apocrypha and pseudipigrapha, ancient Israelite Theology specifics, Gnosticism, theistic arguments in general, evolution, world politics, state of Israel, etc. There's a reason I don't accept much of the scripture, just like there's a reason the "mainstream church" has rejected much of what I consider scripture (as well as certain things ancient "Church Fathers" considered scripture).

    I don't see anything as a "no-win" argument. The only "no-win" I see is from those who tirelessly try to push Revisionism and hole-studded concepts as if they're matter of fact.
     
  20. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
    It's more than just that. It's a middle finger to the Pauline or at least antinomian (Anti-Law) churches, I don't think it's even really concerned about the Roman emperor per se as it is about false doctrines and false beliefs. But I do see it as an actual prophetic concept, but it's not just a big end-time thing. I think it's about a wide-series of events all throughout history, from the Fall of the Jewish Kingdom to the Rise of the Orthodox Church and beyond. When it talks about the four horsemen killing people, I believe it's talking about people throughout history, not all at once. I.e. 1/4 of the wicked of the world will die throughout time because of war and personal fighting, 1/4 by hunger, 1/4 by disease etc.
     
    #360 Shermana, Nov 22, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2013
Loading...