11 Mar 10
4 edits
Originally posted by BadwaterGod is perfect dear Badwater, these assertions are unfounded.
Nothing is perfect, not even God. If God were perfect, he would not have allowed the Tree of Knowledge to be in the Garden. If God were perfect, he would not have become flustered enough with humans to kill all but Noah's family. If God was perfect, then sending Jesus to save humanity would not have been necessary. Perfection does not make mistakes. It is c ...[text shortened]... . To profess otherwise is to turn a conveniently blind set of eyes to fact and the Word of God.
The tree of knowledge of good and bad was not there for Gods benefit, but for humanity's benefit, for it gave them an opportunity to express love back towards God, by remaining obedient, what else could they give him who needed nothing? Those who died in the great flood did so because they had filled the earth with violence, the defect was their own, not Gods. Sending of Christ to propitiate and to reconcile mankind back to himself was a master-stroke of perfection, everything in balance, justice, righteousness, love, mercy, everything was accomplished in that one all encompassing beautiful master-stoke, the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ!
I hope you shall do us the honour of attending the memorial of Christ's death, held annually, as per the apostolic pattern, on the corresponding Jewish month of Nisan 14th. This year it is Tuesday, 30th of March, 7:30 after sundown.
(Deuteronomy 32:4-5) . . .The Rock, perfect is his activity, For all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; Righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own.
11 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieFascinating story...but where did you get it?
levelled against him by the perpetrators of course, silly. They held that God, in withholding moral independence was depriving his intelligent creatures, thus for God to settle the issue, what was he to do? Zap them instantly and start again? nope for that would not have settled the issue. Thus he allowed them to reject his protection , guidance ...[text shortened]... for the perpetrators to prove their point during the course of which evidence could be gathered.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks for that; from what you've posted here "sin" seems to define, in one sense, that which your god wouldn't do...ok...fair enough, that does, (trivially) deal with my first question (Since if I define "hagzak" to be that which agerg wouldn't do then clearly agerg cannot hagzak).
ok, dig this my learned atheist friend,
Sin
Anything not in harmony with, hence contrary to, God’s personality, standards, ways, and will; anything marring one’s relationship with God. It may be in word (Job 2:10; Ps 39:1), in deed (doing wrong acts [Le 20:20; 2Co 12:21] or failing to do what should be done [Nu 9:13; Jas 4:17]), or in mind or he ...[text shortened]... . But its a really good question and needs some thought, so as to give an appropriate answer.
However it also takes on, it seems, a dual definition in that *to sin* is to be a human that acts contrary to your god's will or to do things which are "morally wrong" (where the point of origin you choose for morality happens to be your god's morals) with this second defintion of "sin" then my second question remains...why cannot/must not your god "sin"? What specifically prevents it/Him/... from performing such acts you would say are sinful? What are it's constraints?
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere are bits and pieces of your story that, as far as I can remember, aren't in the Bible. For example,
Hey what do you mean? is it not Biblical, firmly grounded upon the sacred text?
levelled against him by the perpetrators of course, silly. They held that God, in withholding moral independence was depriving his intelligent creatures, thus for God to settle the issue, what was he to do?When does this happen? Can you give me a chapter and verse?
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by SwissGambitthe perpetrators were three, Eve who was deceived, Adam who wilfully consented and the satanic element who enticed them. It was particularly the last element that made the charge, that God was withholding something beneficial and implied that humans would be better off independent of God, here are the words,
There are bits and pieces of your story that, as far as I can remember, aren't in the Bible. For example,levelled against him by the perpetrators of course, silly. They held that God, in withholding moral independence was depriving his intelligent creatures, thus for God to settle the issue, what was he to do?When does this happen? Can you give me a chapter and verse?
(Genesis 3:4-5) . . .At this the serpent said to the woman: “You positively will not die. For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.”
Satan directly charged God with lying, saying that neither Eve’s life nor that of Adam was dependent on obedience to God. He claimed that God was withholding from his creatures something good—the ability to set their own standards in life. “You positively will not die,” Satan asserted. “For God knows that in the very day of your eating from it your eyes are bound to be opened and you are bound to be like God, knowing good and bad.” (Gen. 3:1-5) Satan led Eve to believe that she would be better off making her own decisions. By implication, he there challenged God’s right to rule and His way of ruling. The issue raised actually involved universal sovereignty.
12 Mar 10
Originally posted by AgergGod cannot sin because he is perfect, thus he can perfectly balance moral qualities such as justice and love. He does this because he adheres to his own standards or righteousness, anything less is imperfection and hypocrisy.
Thanks for that; from what you've posted here "sin" seems to define, in one sense, that which your god wouldn't do...ok...fair enough, that does, (trivially) deal with my first question (Since if I define "hagzak" to be that which agerg wouldn't do then clearly agerg cannot hagzak).
However it also takes on, it seems, a dual definition in that *to sin* is t ...[text shortened]... . from performing such acts you would say are sinful? What are it's constraints?
12 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut the point I'd make is that if your God is ground zero for morality then any exception to "our rules" would be morally ok to your god. It would be no act of hypocracy for a god who says "thou shalt not kill" to wipe out almost the entire human race with a great flood, say, if it decided this act was a morally correct exception to the rule from it's perspective.
God cannot sin because he is perfect, thus he can perfectly balance moral qualities such as justice and love. He does this because he adheres to his own standards or righteousness, anything less is imperfection and hypocrisy.
Furthermore how do you know if god cannot be hypocritical?...what if you have been somehow deceived into thinking it is the case that God cannot act against what youi believe to be it's nature??? (perhaps poor translation or perhaps god lied or perhaps...)
In short I fail to see the justification for these assumptions.
12 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Agergno not quite, for 'you shall not kill', of course is a relative statement, which on the surface appears to mean literally no killing, but this cannot be the case, for there is accidental death, when you swing an axe while chopping a tree and it slips from your hands and koshes some poor innocent on the head, also there is capital punishment for crimes such as murder. Thus God may execute judgement for crimes he sees as unjust and where the perpetrators are irreformable and who are causing anxiety and strife to others, as in the great flood, for the earth was 'filled with violence', its never arbitrarily done, as with humans.
But the point I'd make is that if your God is ground zero for morality then any exception to "our rules" would be morally ok to your god. It would be no act of hypocracy for a god who says "thou shalt not kill" to wipe out almost the entire human race with a great flood, say, if it decided this act was a morally correct exception to the rule from it's perspect od lied or perhaps...)
In short I fail to see the justification for these assumptions.
why would he deceive, there is nothing to be gained from such a deception? God is god, the greatest personage in the universe, what can he hope to gain from deception?