• 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!

God is not all powerful and loving debate.

pandamonk

Active Member
dan said:
What Adam and Eve committed was a transgression, not a sin. It is true that they lacked the capacity to know why what they did was wrong, but they knew that weren't supposed to do it. They could not sin, but they could transgress. They're punishment was just, but at the same time, they would have known no joy had they never known pain. They received more blessings than punishments because of their transgression.
This is the LDS belief, not the Christian.
 
pandamonk said:
Was not the devil cast from heaven after God made Adam, because he was jealous of him? I will not go into great detail about this argument about Adam and Eve knowing that "The penalty for sin is death". Ok Adam and Eve knew that sinning will bring the penalty of death, but did they understand? They did not know good and evil until after they ate of the tree, so how could they have understood that it was evil to disobey God? And how could they have understood the evil concequencies of doing so? It's like telling a toddler or baby not to touch the matches lying in the middle of the floor, they know not to touch the matches, because you have told them, but they do not understand that they shouldn't and why they shouldn't touch them. They hastely crawl over to the matches and any parent would stop them in their tracks to avoid them being burnt, but noooo, not God. He allowed them to eat of the tree. So, the punishment they received was unjust.
The devil was not cast from heaven because he was jealous of Adam, but rather because he was jealous of God. I think that he was cast out of heaven before Adam was created, but don't quote me on that. As for the toddler, the toddler is filled with a natural curiosity about the match because he was born into sin. Though the baby may not understand the consequence, he is already filled with the curiosity because of his basic knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve sinned because they were tempted by the Devil, not because they did not understand the consequence of disobeying god. God specifically told them not to eat of the tree. They did understand the consequence. They only sinned because they put that aside for a second and listened to the Devil. Think about when we sin. We know often know the consequence when we sin, but we put it aside and listen to the devil.

Oh well, it's tough to explain my point, and I don't feel into it right now... maybe I'll finish later.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Daniel Burbank said:
Sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous. They were perfectly content in their garden. What they did in their garden might have ended them up in hell, which is certainly the worst punishment. Of course what they did was a sin, otherwise they would not have brought sin into the world, they would have brought transgression into the world.
Excuse me, but it makes more sense that what you are trying to say. If you accept that this brought sin into this world you accepting that God is unjust, even though all-just is one of the main characteristics of your god shown in the Bible. If you accept he is unjst, you are admitting that he is not a god.
 
pandamonk said:
This is true, but he does not know what i know. I know that "I am making a mess", he knows that "Lee is making a mess". There is a difference. Therefore he does not know what i know in knowing that "I am making a mess"
Yes he does because he knows your heart and mind as well as what you do. It says in the bible that all the creatures of the earth answer to god, and when god wants to know what you're thinking, he need only look inside of you.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Daniel Burbank said:
The devil was not cast from heaven because he was jealous of Adam, but rather because he was jealous of God. I think that he was cast out of heaven before Adam was created, but don't quote me on that. As for the toddler, the toddler is filled with a natural curiosity about the match because he was born into sin. Though the baby may not understand the consequence, he is already filled with the curiosity because of his basic knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve sinned because they were tempted by the Devil, not because they did not understand the consequence of disobeying god. God specifically told them not to eat of the tree. They did understand the consequence. They only sinned because they put that aside for a second and listened to the Devil. Think about when we sin. We know often know the consequence when we sin, but we put it aside and listen to the devil.

Oh well, it's tough to explain my point, and I don't feel into it right now... maybe I'll finish later.
How could understand evil if they did not know good and evil? Babies have no knowledge of good and evil, that is why i used them in my argument. It doesn't matter anyway. God told them not to do it, they understood that they weren't to do it, but did not understand that it was evil to disobey God, because they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. If they did, they would have been embarrased about their nakedness before they ate of the tree. Yeh we often know the concequence, because we know good and evil, but they did not, so could not have understood the concequence.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Daniel Burbank said:
I don't get what you mean. Explain it if you could. The punishment for what they did was by just law death, and that's what they got for it.
They could not understand the concequencies because they did not have the knowledge of good and evil. God would have known this, and yet he still punished them.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Daniel Burbank said:
Yes he does because he knows your heart and mind as well as what you do. It says in the bible that all the creatures of the earth answer to god, and when god wants to know what you're thinking, he need only look inside of you.
But he is not me, so he doesn't know what i know when i know "I am maknig a mess", all he knows is that "lee is making a mess". Even if he looks into my heart(brain even) he will go, "ohh lee is thinking that he is making a mess", or lee is thinking "i am making a mess", but that is not the same as knowing myself that i am making a mess. The closest he can get is knowing what i am thinking by saying "Lee is" or "he is", but i know "I am". He cannot know "I am" like i know "i am". When he thinks "I am", he is thinking about himself. So he cannot know what i know when i know that "i am making a mess". He is meant to know all, but can't so is not omniscient.
 
Though they may not have known good and evil, their creator made known to them one thing- not to eat from the tree. Though they could not have understood some strange serpent entering the garden and telling them what to do, or exactly what the tree or sin was, they knew not to do what god told them not to do. They obviously knew that disobeying god was wrong, because when eve was tempted, she responded by saying that god told them not to eat of the tree or else they would die (genesis 3:3). Now, why would she have argued with the devil if she didn't know what death was? When a child is told not to do something by their parents, and a friend tells them to do it, and they say that their parents told them not to do it, then they obviously knew what their parents were saying. Now let's say that this child was 5 months old and their parents told them not to do something, but they do not understand what their parents mean because they do not understand the language but only that their parents said something, and then (hypothetically, of course) their baby friend talks to them in baby language and tells them to do that very thing, they do not respond by telling them that their parents told them not to do it, because they do not understand what their parents said. But obviously Eve knew what God was saying, because she argued with the devil, therefore she understood what god was saying and therefore she knew what death and sin were, though she might not have understood the exact nature of them.
 
pandamonk said:
But he is not me, so he doesn't know what i know when i know "I am maknig a mess", all he knows is that "lee is making a mess". Even if he looks into my heart(brain even) he will go, "ohh lee is thinking that he is making a mess", or lee is thinking "i am making a mess", but that is not the same as knowing myself that i am making a mess. The closest he can get is knowing what i am thinking by saying "Lee is" or "he is", but i know "I am". He cannot know "I am" like i know "i am". When he thinks "I am", he is thinking about himself. So he cannot know what i know when i know that "i am making a mess". He is meant to know all, but can't so is not omniscient.
What you're saying doesn't make logical sense. He knows what your thoughts, and he knows your heart, therefore he knows you. Just because he isn't thinking that "I am making a mess" he knows that Lee is making a mess and he knows your heart and mind so he knows what you were thinking while you were making the mess and why you made the mess.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Daniel Burbank said:
Though they may not have known good and evil, their creator made known to them one thing- not to eat from the tree. Though they could not have understood some strange serpent entering the garden and telling them what to do, or exactly what the tree or sin was, they knew not to do what god told them not to do. They obviously knew that disobeying god was wrong, because when eve was tempted, she responded by saying that god told them not to eat of the tree or else they would die (genesis 3:3). Now, why would she have argued with the devil if she didn't know what death was? When a child is told not to do something by their parents, and a friend tells them to do it, and they say that their parents told them not to do it, then they obviously knew what their parents were saying. Now let's say that this child was 5 months old and their parents told them not to do something, but they do not understand what their parents mean because they do not understand the language but only that their parents said something, and then (hypothetically, of course) their baby friend talks to them in baby language and tells them to do that very thing, they do not respond by telling them that their parents told them not to do it, because they do not understand what their parents said. But obviously Eve knew what God was saying, because she argued with the devil, therefore she understood what god was saying and therefore she knew what death and sin were, though she might not have understood the exact nature of them.
They would not have know it to be wrong or evil, because they did not know evil. She may have said this just bacuase it was what god told them, not because she knew it was wrong. She understood that she had been told not to do it, but did not understant anything about it. She didn't argue with the devil, she just said that God told them not to because they would surely die. She would not have understood that it was wrong not to do as God says, and would have not understood what is wrong about death.
 

pandamonk

Active Member
Daniel Burbank said:
What you're saying doesn't make logical sense. He knows what your thoughts, and he knows your heart, therefore he knows you. Just because he isn't thinking that "I am making a mess" he knows that Lee is making a mess and he knows your heart and mind so he knows what you were thinking while you were making the mess and why you made the mess.
It does make logical sense though. I'm saying that "he does not know what i know", ok? You say, "but he must, he is omniscient". I say " i know that I am maknig a mess" which you agree with, and that no one but me can know what i know in that "I am making a mess", ok? They may know that "Lee is making a mess", and that is great, but it is not what i know in knowing that "I am making a mess". I am the only one who can know that. But God, being omniscient, should know everything, including everything i know, he cannot, so cannot be omniscient.
 
pandamonk said:
They would not have know it to be wrong or evil, because they did not know evil. She may have said this just bacuase it was what god told them, not because she knew it was wrong. She understood that she had been told not to do it, but did not understant anything about it. She didn't argue with the devil, she just said that God told them not to because they would surely die. She would not have understood that it was wrong not to do as God says, and would have not understood what is wrong about death.
But you have no way of knowing that God didn't warn Adam and Eve about death was, because surely God would have properly warned Adam and Eve what death was if he loved them. And he never loved them, why did he create them? Why did he send his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON Jesus to die for their sins so that they may go to heaven if he didn't love Adam and Eve? Do you honestly think that God really wanted it to come down to his son having to die for us? If he didn't love us, then he wouldn't offer us the opportunity to repent and go to heaven. He would have just never sent his son in the first place and left us all to die.
 
pandamonk said:
I'm off to bed, it's 01.18, goodnight, or day
Goodnight to you as well. I hope to debate more with you, though I also hope for your sake that you confess your sins before god and be forgiven. Confess now that Jesus is lord before you have to confess it when it is too late (Phillipians 2:10,11)
 

mr.guy

crapsack
pandamonk said:
Well its compares to what you were before you were weak. But becoming weak can be an experience.
Well, you're really grasping now. Weakness would still need an outside reference to define itself. If god got weaker, then his omnipotence would be diminished; but since omnipotence is representative of "all-potential" or "all-energy", some actual energy would have to be removed from the universe/reality. It couldn't be destroyed (see thermodynamics), and it couldn't get "lost" or transfered because an omnipresent being would be present anywhere the energy might skip off to. Thus, god can't be damaged because he can't "lose" any potential; there's nowhere for it to go. He can't be weak because the relativty requires something stronger to make the comprable observation; none such could exist as god hogs all the potential. Saying god can "experience weakness" (whatever that means) is also moot; omniscience would aquaint god with all "experience"; meaning change is meaningless and impossible.

Ok. You could say "My mood changed", you wouldn't say "My mood damaged".
Grammer aside, you actually could say that. Damage is commonly assosicated and defined by detriment; meaning if being in a bad mood suites one's purpose, then damaging that mindset could be considered detrimental. The concept of damage is perceptual, a matter of vantage, and does not lend itself to absolute definition when considering a total field. This is beside the point. Consider the board i mentioned earlier; when i think of it's centerpoint, therefore dividing it in half (two sections), i actually haven't changed any actual properties of the board. The exersise was purely abstract, and had no bearing, did no "damage" to the board itself. It is no "weaker" because despite my exercise of dividing it up it has only been imaginary.

It dismisses omniscience in the fact that i know something that God cannot know. Therefore God cannot know all. But if you believe God can know what i know, because he is infact, me, then he must, in being me, have evil, which does not dismiss omniscience, like you said, but all-goodness.
Perhaps you intended to use this argument on someone else...?

If he does not have evil, then he is not fully me and therefore cannot know what i know.
Another conclusion is that evil and good don't exist either.

But surely, although he is omnipresent, it does not mean that he actually is me. It just means that he is all around and inside me.
I'm not sure. The difference between being everywhere and being everything is beyond my lowly distinction; i can't say it's implied in omnipresence, though.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
michel said:
why should God provide us with food that does not require cancer-causing preservatives? - he has provided meat, fish and vegetables in abundance. The cancer-causing preservatives are a man made ingredient that allows us to have food stored for longer periods of time than normal; the pesticides are there to allow farmers to get a better return for their work. All these extra elements are man-made, out of greed and avarice, convenience.....................
Unfortunately, with our massive population, it is unrealistic to expect everyone to be able to go out and catch their own fresh food every morning. I won't dispute the convenience factor that comes from canned fruit, but what's wrong with a little convenience now and then? Its not like the average person therefore leads a lazy life of leisure simply because they don't have to grow their own food--in fact, I would argue that people are more stressed and overworked today than in past generations, where perhaps more food was home-grown. As far as greed goes, that is certainly debatable, but one must keep in mind that farming is a business. I don't think farmers are any more or less greedy than anyone else--they just try to keep up, lest they be swallowed.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the majority of the food sent out to third world countries, or even local poor, by churches, governments, and other organizations is prepackaged and concetrated. Fresh meat wouldn't last very long on a plane to Africa, you know.

He did, originally; man has a natural immune system; it is man himself who has weakened that immune system, by becoming obsessed with cleanlyness, so as to reduce the eficacy of his immune system.

Doctors have prescribed anti-biotics for years, in great quantities, which now mweans that we have bacteria which have built up an immunity to the drugs.........
I'm not going to argue with you about the antibiotics and exposure to different elements. My mother is a doctor, and she always gets upset at pediatricians who prescribe antibiotics to every kid who comes along, just to keep the kid's mother happy. Growing up, whenever I would drop a piece of food on the floor, she would say, "Go ahead and eat it--the exposue is good for you!" That's all a far cry from your experiences in Africa, (which seem quite intriguing by the way--I didn't know that about you), but its more than what some of my friends do.

Yes, he is. He expects us all (who have water) to go share it with the Africans, to feed them. They are our Brothers and sisters. And what do we do ? make a small contribution to some charity, so that we feel better inside......while driving to work in a plush car, smoking cigarettes, going to work in a nice plush building..etc
Well, there's a lot more to it than that. Many African countries are controlled by oppressive governments that confiscate all goods sent by caring outsiders for themsevles. They keep their people in poverty so they can be rich, and until they are overthrown, you may as well enjoy your nice car, because there's nothing you can do to help those people. Africa is also very war-torn and has been for quite some time. Why would a government spare anything for their people when they could give it to their soldiers instead?
you cannot blame God for our own laziness, easy consciences, it is our fault.
Heh heh, I actually do not blame god for anything--I don't even believe he exists! All I'm saying is that if god were all-powerful, all-loving, and all-good, we wouldn't have to wrestle with balancing practicality and health, etc.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
pandamonk said:
We were talking about a place created without suffering, not perfect.
Oh, well then, yes, it had no suffering. But it wasn't supposed to have no suffering, so I don't see the implications of this.

pandamonk said:
i said before, someone might be evil, but in no position to cause suffering, ie handicapped/disabled.
Yes, evil causes suffering, by its very nature. Something has to cause suffering for it to be evil.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
pandamonk said:
But they are born knowing everything they need to know to survive, which is all they need to know to do. If they are born with all the knowledge they need, why is it not possible we can know everything we need to know without having to learn?
Because they are lower animals, and they don't need to know quite the same amount of stuff that we need to know. They know the rudimentaries of survival, as do we when we are born. But after that, we need to learn higher stuff (like how to live in our society, how to gain exhaltation, etc.)

pandamonk said:
Ok. But surely you still knew of the president. Why do so many not know of this other god?
Because some people refuse to listen, or refuse to care. For them, it matters even less than whether or not (to me) there is a president or a dictator in Ghana, or some other such country.

pandamonk said:
This does not show that it is not infinite though, because there may be infinitely possible power.
How could you have an infinite thing bound by two finite places? That's like saying the distance between seattle and Spokane is an infinite distance, even if it is only 280 miles.

pandamonk said:
If he was personal would he not communicate personally instead of through prophets?
He does, for some things. But in the matters of the runnings of his world-wide church, he communicates through prophets, for a number of reasons.

pandamonk said:
I never doubted your definition, but you did doubt mine.
Of course I did. :D

pandamonk said:
It's not better so you cannot conceive of something better than perfect.
Oh, I see what you're saying...
 
Top