I realize this is my second thread in a row, and I will do my best to manage both. But Empty Dragon and I have been up all night talking, and we came up with some interesting stuff. Here we go... Again: It's always been faith or knowledge. Curiosity or trust? This is what God tells us. It's not a choice of right or wrong, but saved or un-saved... Man's first sin was biting the apple of knowledge, questioning God. Doubting him, even if in an innocent form. This is concidered grounds to damnation. The big question: what does he have to hide? What does he not want us to realize? What's he AFRAID of!?
It's not fear or if it is... it's that He might have to damn everybody because they persist in sin (that is, wanting to be like/replace/disown God). You're right, it's not a choice between right and wrong anymore (although it was in retrospect): everybody is wrong, and everybody has been forgiven. What's the problem then? That not everybody recognises this. They might still try to save themselves (trying to be their own judge), or not recognise the authority of the judge who has freed them in the first place! You know Milosevic has refused to submit himself to the UN court? So even if he were innocent of all those atrocities, he cannot be found innocent (he has proclaimed himself innocent - that's hardly justifiable). He knows he's guilty, and that the court will find him guilty, so he does not submit to their authority. If the judges were partial, they could find him innocent, but it wouldn't be justice either. So what would be justice? To be judged fairly by an impartial judge. In repenting before God, you place yourself in his court, and you recognise your guilt because you know He knows you're guilty. God is fair, so He had to judge humanity - the penalty of death (and since we have eternal life in His kingdom, the rightful penalty would be: eternal death). What could He do? He didn't want us to die, so He sent Jesus instead, to die for our sins, past and future - to receive the penalty. This is where Christianity comes in: Jesus conquered death because He was blameless. He was the second Adam. So that we don't have to. Now we live in thankfullness because He has forgiven you. But we still have to submit to that judgment if we are to be freed. That is what is meant by "submission to God" - it's not a slavery-like submission, it's submission to freedom. That "knowledge" was knowledge of good and evil. If they had the strength within themselves, they might have tried to stay on the side of good, but since disobeying God means not recognising His authority, Adam and Eve had already placed themselves outside God's will, and would have had to continually make that choice as long as they lived. We are still making that choice. But as long as people insist that they can set themselves free, they are still choosing against God, still hiding from Him, and still sinning.
If UN court is only mentioned in a book and never be found on Earth, do you still tell the same story?
Jenyar, I have several issues with your assertions. What exactly do you mean by ‘die’ in this context? If someone I love dies then I would feel a great loss and never expect to ever see them again. But a god dying???? How can an immortal being die? What is it that Jesus gave up? It wasn’t his life since god knows that he is immortal. How did god suffer in anyway by allegedly giving up his son who he knew was going to be resurrected anyway? What penalty did Jesus pay? I don’t see anything. The claim is empty. It is said that God so loved the world that he gave his only son. If Christianity is true then it would seem that God and his son are still together. What was given up? What has god given up in order to demonstrate his love? I can’t see any loss whatsoever. There seems to be a major sequence issue at stake here. The claim is that Adam and Eve didn’t stay on the side of good. But how did they know what was good and what wasn’t? Their decision to eat the apple was without the knowledge of what was good or bad. Remember they hadn’t eaten the apple that would give them the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve can never be held responsible for doing something bad because they did not have the knowledge that enabled them to make that judgment. They didn’t know their disobedience was wrong until AFTER they had eaten the apple. To then condemn them and all of mankind is a total sham. And since this alleged evil act is the basis for condemning mankind and consequently the basis of Christianity then it follows that Christianity is a total sham. Cris
Cris: According to christian lore, Jesus spent 3 days in hell after he got crucified. That could have been his "death".
D'Rat, Free will? Nah, we can never have free will if there is a creator of everything who knows everything that is ever going to happen. If he knows everything from the outset then everything must be pre-determined. Free will has no meaning under such conditions.
He would rather not say • What Does God Have To Hide!? (I think it's a scorching case of herpes.) thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jesus was fully human. He died a human death. God resurrected Him. At the point that Jesus died, He did not have God's help ("Why have You forsaken me?"). But death had no hold on Him, beacuse He was without sin. Adam and Eve might not have known evil, but they had God's word against the devil's. And they made the wrong choice.
Originally posted by Cris Free will? Nah, we can never have free will if there is a creator of everything who knows everything that is ever going to happen. If he knows everything from the outset then everything must be pre-determined. Free will has no meaning under such conditions. Actually, you can have free will and omniscience but to do so eliminates omnipotence becase it puts the omniscient being outside of time and makes interaction impossible. ~Raithere
Actually, omnipotence suggests that it is possible to be outside of time and still have that interaction.
Jenyar, Nonsense, if they are omnipotent and omniscient then everything that is claimed would have been planned and known advance. And humans cannot perform miracles so the claim that Jesus was fully human must be seriously doubted. The crucifixion story has no meaning if you cannot show what was sacrificed that is sufficiently significant to demonstrate the alleged love God has for humans. If Jesus still lives then nothing was lost, there was no meaningful sacrifice. And if the ‘trinity’ has any meaning then the father and son must have been in complete collusion anyway. That doesn’t answer the question. How could they have knowingly made the wrong choice? They did not have the knowledge (of good and evil) to be able to make such a valued choice. If a very young child does something wrong because they have never met the situation before then the parent will teach them the correct approach. The parent does not condemn the child to death for something they could not possibly have understood. My question is perhaps unfair, since I know there is no rational answer to this paradox. The Adam and Eve story is simply ludicrous, and without the concept of original sin then CHRISTIANITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBLE BASIS.
Originally posted by Jenyar Actually, omnipotence suggests that it is possible to be outside of time and still have that interaction. No. This fails logical analysis. Because the only way for omniscience to exist without predetermination is for there to be no interaction. If change is possible then omniscience cannot exist. You cannot have all 3. Similar to the question of Good and Evil regarding Omniscience/Omnipotence/Omnibenevolence the conditions are exclusive. Think of it this example: We know that Christopher Columbus sailed to America. We know that he had free choice in doing so, that is he might have decided not to sail. Now, we can have knowledge of this event coexistent with his free choice only because the event cannot be changed. But if we could change the event, if we somehow stop him from sailing then our "knowledge" that he sailed to America would be false. Similarly, we could have free choice and God could be omniscient but for these to remain true God must exist outside of time (since omniscience indicates knowledge of all time) and cannot change anything. The event known is causal to knowledge, not the other way around. You cannot have knowledge of that which has not yet happened. You might have a prediction, you may even have an accurate prediction, but prediction is not knowledge. The belief of the prediction transitions from opinion to knowledge only upon occurrence of the event. That is, the event causes the belief to be true the belief does not cause the event to be true. Of course, you can say that it's beyond logic but then we might claim anything with that "proof"... ~Raithere
Jesus and his disciples performed miracles, with the authority given to them by God. Jesus was fully human, He did not know the future other than what was prophesied, and what God told Him. As such, Jesus was on a "need to know" basis, much like we are today. Jesus had complete faith. Miracles are completely dependent on faith. Jesus knew He was the Messiah - He knew His death was necessary, and that no amount of faith would save Him from death, in fact, it is His single-minded faith in God that condemned Him to death in the end, and not His miracles. This is how I understand Jesus could be God the Son while not being the God the Father: His will and God's will were the same thing, they were of one mind, the same in authority. But Jesus was human, with a human body, He had free will, just like any man - He was also tempted, but He had a pure connection with God, untainted by sin. John10:17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. 19At these words the Jews were again divided. 20Many of them said, "He is demon- possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?" 21But others said, "These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?" Miracles have no use to you, Cris. You won't believe them if you saw them anyway. But those people saw them, and in that light could not question His words or actions. It should be enough to know that even Jesus' most adverse skeptics had to concede this.
Sorry, I thought you said omniscient. Because then, you can have knowledge with or without changing the event, you would know what would happen if you changed it, and you would know what would happen if you didn't. I don't see the problem. When the belief causes the event to be true, it is called a miracle. Or when the "prediction" is knowledge, it is called prophecy.
Originally posted by Jenyar Sorry, I thought you said omniscient. Because then, you can have knowledge with or without changing the event, you would know what would happen if you changed it, and you would know what would happen if you didn't. I don't see the problem. Because it would mean that you didn't have knowledge before. This does get confusing as we're addressing it from a point outside of time, in which case the MST becomes static and unchanging. Time would exist as a wholly apparent dimension. To have knowledge, MST would have to remain unchanging. When the belief causes the event to be true, it is called a miracle. Even if it were true that belief could affect an event directly (that is, thought could influence reality directly not through the body) knowledge is still derived from the event itself. Belief can only be verified or denied from the event. Or when the "prediction" is knowledge, it is called prophecy. Prediction cannot be knowledge because it occurs before the event. Knowledge is true belief... that is, belief that is in agreement with reality. Before the event occurs how can the truth of the prediction be determined? Only after the event can the prediction be verified? ~Raithere
I really don't mean to drag thsi convrsation into thelogicl argument, or for that matterdrag the convrrsation back. but.... In theoritical land why couldn't a demon open the eyes of a blind man. (Just a curious question, but you know what they say about curiousity...you end up on sciforums) On that same not if say a Taoist master healed a blind man does his power come form god? I have been told be several christian that if a power does not come from good it would be evil/Satans. Why would that be or is that the way it is I don't know. If you believed there was a pink bunny wearing clown shoes, and a yellow tuque standing infront of you would the little guy really be there or just a figment of your imagination? Perhaps at the the begining you couldn't even see the rabbit, but you believed long enough that your mind created the image of the rabbit. Is that a miracle or illusion? If your mind could create an illusion like that then what else in your life could be an illusion what at all could you hold as constant and true? I belive I am typing on a computer right now, but is it possible that I could be smash my head on the wall in a padded rom with doctors around telling em to snap out of it?
Don't divorce Christianity too much from reality. That is certainly not what I am trying to do. Christianity, with the example of Jesus, is intrinsically compatible with reality, though maybe not with people. If the blindness is caused by a demon, a demon would not drive it out, Jesus explained it this way: "a house divided against itself would not stand". The people then accused Jesus of being from the devil Himself, denying the truth in face of evidence and thereby demonstrating their own blindness.
