Often Christians claim that humans' relationship with God is like a child-parent relationship. Yet they also claim that God will refuse to protect us from pain and suffering if we "choose" otherwise.
Yet a good human parent won't allow xyr small child to "choose" to play "dodge the cars" on the nearby freeway because xe recognizes that the child is too ignorant and immature to understand the situation.
God seems by this parent-child analogy to be a "parent" who watches xyr biological seven year old triplets play "paintball" with their friends using live firearms that they found in the attic of their house (an old condemned rat infested structure without proper roofing and insulation - hey, if the kids don't like it, they can "choose" to fix it themselves - of course, they need to find the tools on their own...). The kids barely know the parent exists because the parent orphaned the kids when they were tiny to encourage their "free will". The parent hides watching the kids on hidden cameras from a hidden room in a house across the street and only communicates by giving poorly written notes to strangers and asking them to give the note to the child. "Please are the not use the paintball to the other friend because I say it shall not be the way the case is will be", for example. The parent writes the notes in his own blood to one child because "that's what it takes to show my child I truly love him and am willing to suffer as he suffers". Another child gets a slightly different note, not written in blood, and the third another slightly different note, again, not in blood, and they get to show each other their various notes and try to figure out what the heck these notes are about. Of course they will argue and the parent makes sure not to clarify the situation for them - in the name of "free will" again. How could these children choose to truly love xym if the parent didn't give them the freedom to misunderstand or even reject the author of these notes? Only one of the notes, by the way, actually says (poorly) what it is the parent wants to communicate. The others are decoys meant to encourage debate and allow the children to "choose" the correct message.
The parent occasionally, long long ago before the triplets were born, actually spoke to a few of the kids' much older siblings who are now dead. The kids have some of the diaries of these relatives who themselves were unclear what the parent was about.
This parent of course knew about the firearms and that they were loaded but refused to lock them away or remove them or the ammunition - all in the name of "free will" again.
The parent insists that xe really, really loves the kid. That's why xe's not interfering; xe believes that encouraging the child's "free will" is more important than protecting the kid. "Xe has to make xyr own choices" the parent insists. "If I interfere, the child will never be able to truly love me, and this is more important than any amount of happiness or protection from suffering for the kid".
If I were the parent, I wouldn't raise my kids this way. I'd keep the child from being able to do what the child wanted sometimes. I'd make sure my kids knew my face and interacted with me day to day - not in the BS "Daddy speaks to me by having me speak in tongues" way or by giving poorly written notes.
Originally posted by KellyJaypage 21 . . .
I said at first there was a perfect universe, sin entered, it now needs
cleaned. Once evil has run its full course it will be dealt with forever,
and that will be that. I don't believe I have changed my stance at
any time.
Kelly
KJ
. . . after the day of judgment when sin is purged from the universe the world will be a better place. Sin is just a small bump in the road within eternity it has its time now, and when it is dealt with, it will be completely dealt with to the very core of all that causes sin. The world will be a better place, the lion will lay down with the lamb, and no weapons of war will ever be built again.
telerion
Can you give a clear logical argument as to why your god couldn't make this "lion-lamb" universe from the get go?
KJ
Gen 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
Lion-lamb time, that is until some bad choices were made.
-- Maybe I'm misreading you here, but it sure seems like you said that god made a "lion-lamb" universe from the start and then we messed it up. You can clearly see though by your own words [that I bolded] that it is impossible to mess up a "lion-lamb" universe. That's why I'm confused when you then say on page 22,
KJ
After the great day of the Lord when all things are judged for what they really are, it will not go back to that ever again. The universe pre sin and post sin will not be the same, the former will have to be cleaned the ladder will not have to be.
Originally posted by telerionGood observation. If God couldn't make a perfect universe without giving humans the chance to introduce sin, how can he ever change the universe such that it will be perfect and contain no evil without suppressing "free will" at that time (which would, from what I understand of Christianity's ideas of "free will", make the universe imperfect)?
page 21 . . .
Actually, isn't the whole "End Times" idea that God will remove all the good people and leave ONLY the unredeemed sinners in the universe (or at least the only ones on Earth)? If the entire planet of Earth has only unredeemed sinners and devils and the like (or whatever it is supposed to be like after the End Times) how will the universe then be perfect and without evil? How is it even possible from a Christian perspective for there to be perfection without evil? From what I understand, Christianity claims evil is logically necessary for perfection to exist because without evil there cannot be free will.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI agree, but if you ask them this directly, as I did to whodey back on page 8 I believe, they will almost always reply, "No."
Good observation. If God couldn't make a perfect universe without giving humans the chance to introduce sin, how can he ever change the universe such that it will be perfect and contain no evil without suppressing "free will" at that time (which would, from what I understand of Christianity's ideas of "free will", make the universe imperfect)?
Actu ...[text shortened]... cally necessary for perfection to exist because without evil there cannot be free will.
Originally posted by telerionThe state it was in at the beginning was a lion-lamb universe, it had
page 21 . . .
KJ
. . . after the day of judgment when sin is purged from the universe the world will be a better place. Sin is just a small bump in the road within eternity it has its time now, and [b]when it is dealt with, it will be completely dealt with to the very core of all that causes sin. The world will be a better place, the lio ot be the same, the former will have to be cleaned the ladder will not have to be.[/b]
creatures man and angels that had the ability to make choices. It
went bad. So if you are comparing the pre sin universe with the post
sin universe, and asking why God didn't make it like the post sin
universe in the first place, I don't know. All I can say is that the
difference is that the post sin universe will have in it creatures man
and angels that will know what sin and evil can do if given a foot hold
in the universe so little wires on the hands and feet are not required
to make them not pick sin. Robots will not be required, free choice
and still no evil will be the norm, a better universe.
My opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionWhen I said that one need not necessarily sin, I was thinking in terms of individual choices. For example, Christ never sinned, nor did the majority of his angelic hosts. However, in order to say that creation has free will, I think evidence for such a claim is in order.
So we are back to page 8 (and also page 19)
telerion
Must there be sin for there to be free will then?
whodey
No. In fact, Christ had free will and did not sin.
It seems that you are answering my third question above with "Yes." Do you believe that in order for you to freely choose to serve your god, at least somebody else has ...[text shortened]... 't your decision yours and yours alone? If not, then how else could you be held responsible?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPerhaps his creation will have learned, at some point, the folly of sin and choose never to repeat such insanity.
Good observation. If God couldn't make a perfect universe without giving humans the chance to introduce sin, how can he ever change the universe such that it will be perfect and contain no evil without suppressing "free will" at that time (which would, from what I understand of Christianity's ideas of "free will", make the universe imperfect)?
Actu ...[text shortened]... cally necessary for perfection to exist because without evil there cannot be free will.
Originally posted by KellyJayI agree and I don't know why your god didn't create the such a universe in the beginning either. I think "I don't know" is a fair response. At the same time, I think you can understand why I wouldn't find it very compelling.
The state it was in at the beginning was a lion-lamb universe, it had
creatures man and angels that had the ability to make choices. It
went bad. So if you are comparing the pre sin universe with the post
sin universe, and asking why God didn't make it like the post sin
universe in the first place, I don't know. All I can say is that the
difference is ...[text shortened]... red, free choice
and still no evil will be the norm, a better universe.
My opinion.
Kelly
Originally posted by whodeySo is it the your opinion that if a creation is to have free will some one in it must choose to sin?
When I said that one need not necessarily sin, I was thinking in terms of individual choices. For example, Christ never sinned, nor did the majority of his angelic hosts. However, in order to say that creation has free will, I think evidence for such a claim is in order.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou would keep your child from being able to do what they wanted sometimes? What is sometimes? Does one ever allow his child to mature and grow up? Is the parent not obligated to slowly release the child in order to foster thier own autonomy? Wiping their butt and breast feeding them at age 10 seems a little out of line, no?
If I were the parent, I wouldn't raise my kids this way. I'd keep the child from being able to do what the child wanted sometimes. I'd make sure my kids knew my face and interacted with me day to day - not in the BS "Daddy speaks to me by having me speak in tongues" way or by giving poorly written notes.[/b]
Don't get me wrong, if you are God's child, he does chasten you to do as you ought to do. He does not merely leave you to your own devices. He does in fact command us to interact with him on a daily basis and keep in touch, so to speak. How else are we to know his will from day to day if we do not keep in touch with him from day to day?
Originally posted by KellyJayIt sounds like you're saying sin exists because people are ignorant of the consequences of sin, and that God will be able to set things up so that this isn't the case without a problem. I recommend you think, study, meditate and/or pray (which is just another kind of meditation in my opinion) hard about this, because to me it's a fatal flaw in the Christian model of reality.
The state it was in at the beginning was a lion-lamb universe...
Originally posted by telerionTake for example communism. The US and the USSR were at odds philosophically in regards to communism. The US could have gotten into a war with the USSR and forceably prevented them from taking their own coarse and allowing them to attempt to make it work. We could then, after having stopped them, have educated them on the errors of their ways. However, this did not happen. They were allowed to continue as they willed and it fell apart on its own. Which is a better learning tool in regards to "proving" to all creation the fallacies regarding communism? If we had prevented the experiment from attempting to succeed, you would still have some yahoo's insisting that it could have worked had it been given a chance.
Why not teach them from the get go? Would it violate their free will to understand the folly of sin?
Originally posted by whodeyI've always found it interesting how the pattern seems to be that all humans must sin unless they happen to also be God and human by choice instead of circumstance. Angels of course are not human.
When I said that one need not necessarily sin, I was thinking in terms of individual choices. For example, Christ never sinned, nor did the majority of his angelic hosts. However, in order to say that creation has free will, I think evidence for such a claim is in order.
The pattern is so amazingly pronounced; it's a mirror image of a universe in which free choice exists but no one sins. If free choice means people will sin and therefore it's incompatible with the lack of sin as I believe I've seen some Christians assert on the forum (can't remember who or when), then it's equally incompatible with no human being free from sin (unless that human happens to also be God).
Here's an interesting question for Christians: if sinning means not being with God or being separated from God (which I believe is at least one standard Christian definition if not the only one), then was it possible for Jesus to sin even if he wanted to? How can God not be with God? It seems to me that Jesus not sinning was not a choice on his part but the only non-paradoxical possibility, and that every human who has ever existed has sinned without exception unless it was logically impossible for that human to sin because he was also God and God cannot sin by definition.