If you were God?

Originally posted by Darfius
Explain how He could have. Again, pointing to His omnipotence and saying "der, He can do ANYTHING" is not a point, since 'anything' is not synonymous with 'anything my little mind can imagine'.

Again, pointing to His omnipotence and saying "der, He can do ANYTHING" is not a point

Yes it is.

'anything' is not synonymous with 'anything my little mind can imagine'

According to Christians, God's omnipotence is not limited by your little mind's imagination.

Originally posted by telerion
Assuming that the omnipotent, omniscient designer of the universe could have created a different universe than the one that exists is "not a good argument"?

You're asking us to tell you how a supernatural being creates ex nihilo. That's ludicrous. The best evidence we have that your god could have created the universe differently is stories from the B ...[text shortened]... says that your god can alter the solar system with no deleterious effects on human life.

Obviously He could have created a different universe, but I thought it would be understood that I meant a better universe. Obviously I will need to hold your hand from now on.

I happen to be of the opinion that God did not violate natural laws with miracles. That story in Joshua, for example, contains lots of poetic language intermixed with the narrative, so that the effects spoken of could well be explained by a hail storm (advocated by scholars like Madvig and Walt Kaiser)!

The Hebrew word used to describe the sun's activities could well mean that the sun wasn't as 'hot' as usual, which would do just as much to aid the Israelites (who were weary from hours of marching during the night and would have had their strength sapped quickly by the scorching Palestinian sun).

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]Again, pointing to His omnipotence and saying "der, He can do ANYTHING" is not a point

Yes it is.

'anything' is not synonymous with 'anything my little mind can imagine'

According to Christians, God's omnipotence is not limited by your little mind's imagination.[/b]

Still waiting for your explanation. THAT would prove me wrong. You grabbing your crotch and flexing does not.

Originally posted by Darfius
Obviously He could have created a different universe, but I thought it would be understood that I meant a better universe. Obviously I will need to hold your hand from now on.

I happen to be of the opinion that God did not violate natural laws with miracles. That story in Joshua, for example, contains lots of poetic language intermixed with the n ...[text shortened]... he night and would have had their strength sapped quickly by the scorching Palestinian sun).

You really need to be more careful with your assumptions. Maybe in a fringe theology school like UTD, everyone thinks pretty much the same way so you can say something like

"Explain how He could have made the universe differently."

and all your peers know that you really mean

"Explain how He could have made the universe better."

You don't need to hold anyones hand. You need to use the English language in an intelligent manner. This sort of vague language may earn you high honors at your institution but in the big world it just makes you look confused.

It must be a blast being a theology student. You just get to make rubbish up for a few years and BAM you get a degree. Awesome. Hey, tell us how the virgin birth did not violate natural laws. That should be a fun story.

So is it your contention then that, at the moment of creation, your god had to respect natural laws that did not yet exist?

Also please state the necessary and sufficient conditions for 'true love' to be understood by free will endowed agents.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
'Religion', as I understand it, means the belief of the existence of God, AND the activities that are connected with the worship of Him. It's that latter part relating to worshiping Him that I question.

And then there are also so many religions, each claiming that it's the only true one. Of course each has it's own 'holy' books or scriptures or whatever hear about the bible, let alone trying to fathom God's cryptic messages therein?

I have to say, I would have thought it would have been believing in God to be the thing that had you going instead of the latter part. Who cares about the ladder part when it comes to someone else’ beliefs in what they must do to worship? Out side of attacking other people or something along those lines what is that to anyone else? They stand or fall to a real god or a fake god, if they serve their god the way they believe they are supposed to, who am I to find fault? If the god they serve a god who isn’t real, it does not matter in the end what they were doing, nothing they did is going to add to or take away from their life after they die anyway according to a god who isn’t real. If the god they serve is real it is to that god they will give an account not me. If they choose a god who isn’t real or choose to ignore the ‘real’ God, than to God they will give an account for their lives, again it will not be by my standards, but God's.

I believe God is the only one who can make Himself real to you, but He only does it to those that really are seeking Him. That isn’t the same thing as those that are trying to put God through their paces, or trying to make God jump through their hoops, because of the way they do things or think about things, after all He is God they are not. The fact that there are many different ‘religions’ doesn’t add too or take away from is God real or not, it only means that there are many different religions. With regard to interpreting scripture there are some difficult passages, and some that are not difficult too. The cool thing about God is that one of His promises (in the book of James) is that He said He would grant wisdom to anyone who asks. If He is God, He gave you, your ability to understand and grasp the universe around you, He can enlighten you too.

Christianity has many branches I agree, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who claims to be a Christian is, and those that are necessarily are going to agree to the same thing the same way either all the time. You mix in those that are just playing a religious game by calling themselves Christians you are going to get a huge variety of denominations within the Christian faith. I do not know who is a real Christian or not, it isn’t my job to figure it out either Jesus will sort that out in the end. I’m quite sure that some I thought were not will be accepted by Christ and some I thought were will be rejected, point being it is a relationship with God through Jesus that makes someone a Christian not KellyJay’s views on who is and isn’t one.

Who belongs to God, who has a relationship with God now, not how good you think you are that matters. I can by my standards be the best of the best, at the same time be the worse of the worse by your standards, middle of the road by some other person’s standards, and we would be judging ourselves by ourselves. So if the whole is flawed beyond hope, what does it matter that you or I are less flawed by our views, we are bias while God isn’t. What happens to those that didn’t hear that will be up to God to judge and up to man to limit the number of people we allow to fall into the category by our actions.
Kelly

PS Sorry this ended up being a book!

Originally posted by Darfius
Wow, present in the cell structure? Please tell me where in the cell structure I can find 'sin nature'.

Of course, that will be problematic, since when Paul spoke of 'death passing to all men through Adam', he meant the SENTENCE of death for sin, not us paying for something he chose to do.

Aside from original sin adherents lacking any prooftexts wha ...[text shortened]... ver, expecting them to respond with gratitude and being angry when they show you disdain.

Wow, present in the cell structure? Please tell me where in the cell structure I can find 'sin nature'.
Sorry, can't help you there. I don't know that sin even has physical properties ascertainable via observation. I do know, however, that the sin nature is present (Rom. 6:6; 6:12; 7:7-18; 8:3-5; and others); and that it is passed on by Adam, but not the woman (Rom.5:18a--- among other references, of course).

Of course, that will be problematic, since when Paul spoke of 'death passing to all men through Adam', he meant the SENTENCE of death for sin, not us paying for something he chose to do.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds as though the last part of your sentence confirms what the first part is denying. The 'sentence of death for sin' is passed onto us utilizing what mechanic? Moreover, what do you take 'sentence of death' to mean, exactly? How can the sentence (execution of judgment) be passed onto us (mysteriously) through Adam and that situation be considered anything but "us paying for something he chose to do?"

If sin is something we are born into, and cannot help but do, then God is "saving" us from a condition He imposed upon us.
Fallen is our natural state, a natural consequence of Adam's willful disobedience. The imputation of Adam's sin to every human being is part of God's genius, not a weakness in His plan.

Until we understand the various imputations, we are mired in a jumbled mess of seeming contradiction and incongruity. Surely that is not God's way. The spiritual life cannot be defined in vague terms.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Wow, present in the cell structure? Please tell me where in the cell structure I can find 'sin nature'.
Sorry, can't help you there. I don't know that sin even has physical properties ascertainable via observation. I do know, however, that the sin nature is present (Rom. 6:6; 6:12; 7:7-18; 8:3-5; and others); and that it is passed on by Adam, ...[text shortened]... t[/i] is not God's way. The spiritual life cannot be defined in vague terms.[/b]

Its amazing to me you guys bringing up biblical quotes and thinking they are all real. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Why can't you religious types try relying on your own brain to give you morality? Why do you have to get it from a plagerized 2000 year old book?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Its amazing to me you guys bringing up biblical quotes and thinking they are all real. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Why can't you religious types try relying on your own brain to give you morality? Why do you have to get it from a plagerized 2000 year old book?

You quote people from time to time you trust right? It is faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You quote people from time to time you trust right? It is faith.
Kelly

Fallacy of equivocation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Its amazing to me you guys bringing up biblical quotes and thinking they are all real. Do you also believe in the tooth fairy? Why can't you religious types try relying on your own brain to give you morality? Why do you have to get it from a plagerized 2000 year old book?

A Tooth Fairy Bible seems like a good idea.

Originally posted by no1marauder
A Tooth Fairy Bible seems like a good idea.

Would the really pious tithe more of their teeth? Would the saints all be toothless?

Originally posted by rwingett
Fallacy of equivocation.

You are relying on something or someone holding out truth to you
are you not? If not truth, than 'less falsehood' than others, at some
point you are resting on a foundation of something to understand
the universe as you see it are you not? If you tell me there isn't
any truth or reality out there I'd accept that is how you see it I
guess, but if you do believe in truth and reality as it comes from
something or someone and you are rejecting it from other sources,
are you not putting faith in the sources that help you form your
views of reality and truth as being the most right or correct there
is?
Kelly

Originally posted by rwingett
Would the really pious tithe more of their teeth? Would the saints all be toothless?

No, you need only believe in the Tooth Fairy. Then no matter what sins you have committed - failing to floss towards the Holy Land 7 times a day, excessive eating of sweets, etc. etc. - you will receive redemption and a small cash payment. It is faith through grace that gets you the dime (1950's value; about $2 inflation adjusted now), not anything your sinful, unworthy canines do.

Originally posted by telerion
You really need to be more careful with your assumptions. Maybe in a fringe theology school like UTD, everyone thinks pretty much the same way so you can say something like

"Explain how He could have made the universe [b]differently."

and all your peers know that you really mean

"Explain how He could have made the universe better."

...[text shortened]... y and sufficient conditions for 'true love' to be understood by free will endowed agents.[/b]

Since the topic is called "If you were God" and the previous posts have spoken about how God could have made the universe better...I thought perhaps you'd be capable of keeping up. My mistake. Uh, UTD isn't even a seminary, so why did you say "fringe theology"? Haha, you just got caught using loaded words for cheap psychological effect, chump.

I'm not a theology student, either. Thanks for the compliment, though.

Where did I say that God 'had' to respect the current natural laws??? All I said was that natural laws are effective everywhere. Are you saying He could have created a universe without natural law? Where everything is random? How would we then be able to tell when a miracle occurred? Good thing you're not God. You'd f*** everything up.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Wow, present in the cell structure? Please tell me where in the cell structure I can find 'sin nature'.
Sorry, can't help you there. I don't know that sin even has physical properties ascertainable via observation. I do know, however, that the sin nature is present (Rom. 6:6; 6:12; 7:7-18; 8:3-5; and others); and that it is passed on by Adam, ...[text shortened]... t[/i] is not God's way. The spiritual life cannot be defined in vague terms.[/b]

'Sin nature' in those verses means "the flesh" or earthly man without divine influence. A man whose mind is on temporal pleasures rather than God. It in no way has a connotation of a tendency to sin 'passed down' to us.

As far as what I meant by sentence, I meant in legal terms. What Adam did, in effect, is analogous to what the first carjackers did. Their punishments became 'precedent' and how modern day carjackers are effectively dealt with. So we are not guilty because of Adam, we are dealt with in the same way Adam was (spiritual and physical death). We are guilty because of our own sins, but suffer the same 'penalty' that Adam did.

And no, punishing us 'for the sins of our fathers' would not be 'genius'. It would be cruel. We are punished for OUR sins, and thus should truly be grateful that the Lord has deemed to provide us with an atoning sacrifice.