13 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by blindfaith101The point is that you do not love GOD, therefore you cannot accept or agree.
No Eve was not pregnant, I just used that as an example.
The point is that you do not love GOD, therefore you cannot accept or agree. You enjoy looking at it from man's point of view. You as well as others think that man is all that. When the truth of the matter is, Man was created from the dust of the earth. The dust on the bottom of your shoe.
And how would you know the first thing about my relationship with God?
You enjoy looking at it from man's point of view.
We are men, and this is enough. Some of us are interested in
knowing God, as in understanding him. Blind faith is not enough for
this.
II Timothy 1:7 “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of
power, and of love, and a sound mind.”
Blind faith means not using your sound mind. In your case it means
developing a spirit of fear. How do you expect to know God like that?
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou claim that this means that God didn’t allow evil he created it. I guess I’m just not seeing the distinction.
I can agree with you that God is the source of all things. You claim
that this means that God didn’t allow evil he created it. I guess I’m
just not seeing the distinction. If it helps to clear up some of the
fussing we’ll go with your view that he created it.
Anyway, I’m not sure about the “plethora of viewpoints” that ...[text shortened]... “ascent” to keter, or at least to hochma, i.e., past the discursive, dividing aspects of binah?[/b]
Maybe I can put these two together, so that there isn’t so much of a distinction: (1) There is some combination of qualities or processes in the natural order as God created it, that allows at least for the possibility to arise; (2) and a God that is active in the ongoing processes of the creation could subsequently decide whether to allow that outcome. I have been stressing the first part; you have been stressing the second part. Does that make sense?
I understand how you’re arguing the necessity of evil; it’s a longstanding position (it’s in Taoism, too: part of the yin/yang), and is probably one of the Jewish strains of thought on it as well. I’m not arguing about that simply because I haven’t decided where I stand yet. Although one possibility—not too far from yours, but I think not exactly the same either—is this: once human beings come to that level of consciousness where they judge between good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, bondage/liberty, etc., that capacity and tendency is also going to extend into the moral realm—they (we) will know “know” righteousness and unrighteousness (to use the primary Jewish moral term). Now, I’m not prepared to argue how/why—e.g., natural law, social needs, Kantian categorical imperatives, whatever—but just to point out a possibility.
I just want to illustrate how deep and variable the Hebrew language is, by pointing out that the “fall” story is not simply about morality, because tov and ra are not strictly moral terms, and neither was the English word “evil” originally. That is why, in Hebrew exegesis, there is no “one-and-only right” reading of the text, and never has been. That appears to be a Christian innovation, coming probably from the Greek side of things.
BTW, no offense but what relevance does all this have?
Sorry, that was a direct response to asp, to try to get an idea exactly where he’s coming from. But “tikkun” in kabbalah (which in Judaism is a major—the major?—theological stream (and is not new-age occult stuff), refers in part to the efforts of the “righteous man” ( ha tzaddik) to repair the fragmented world. But there’s a whole body of thought and literature behind it—just consider it an aside to asp: I thought I could short-cut the question by going right to terminology that I think he understands…. No offense taken—my bad really.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI don't know where all these terms come from(omnipotent,etc.) but can we simply leave them out for a minute. I think the stance that this website is giving, and I say this because I have read most of the articles and have been to many of their functions, is that God is the creator. From that point on, all He did was create good while giving free choice. Now here is where the "gamble" comes in. It is similiar to a "master chess player" who sees far in advance, all the possible moves. So in that respect, the outcomes of scenarios is always changing. Some things have already been accomplished and cannot change. Such as, the coming of the "Messiah", salvation, etc., but in the end, He knows He wins. That is, satan is defeated, etc. In the personal lives of people, their is an ongoing struggle, depending on the choices people make. Satan is destructive, shrewd, cunning, etc., but God is even wiser and can turn satan's evil into good. How? I don't have a clue. I cannot fathom His wisdom. His wisdom reaches above the clouds is one biblical definition.
[b]…if
omnipotent means God wills all things that happen…
Question: Do you mean here that strictly that God “actively” wills, or are you also allowing for God to “passively” allow? What I’m getting at is, can omnipotence also mean that God allows what God could prevent if God so chose? Or is it your understanding that whatever happens is ...[text shortened]... y, I’m wondering how “big” that “if” is in your presentation; I don’t want to stumble over it&hellip😉[/b]
The bible says there is an unseen and ongoing "spiritual battle". Just as in chess even the best player would still lose some pieces. So in the spiritual battle there are casualties. I cannot explain why some good people are lost or suffer nor why some bad people seem to prosper. I do not have the "insight" into all that is going on in this battle. I just know enough to pray at times for things that the "spirit impresses" upon me. I hope this makes sense. If you have read Kushner, it might.🙂
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101
It was never for man to know evil. True the opportunity to sin was there. Man could have waited and spoke to GOD. Told GOD about the serpent. GOD trusted man. Trusted man enough that HE went elsewhere to rest from all HIS work.
If God trusted Man, then God couldn't have been omniscient because
Man didn't do what God expected.
An entity which is omniscient knows precisely what is going to happen.
Don't you get it?! There are only two possibilities:
1) God didn't know that Man was going to fall, and, therefore is not omniscient;
OR
2) God knew that Man would fall, but made Man that way anyway,
(that is, made Man imperfect).
Nemesio
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by blindfaith101Yes. Man had a choice. He chose poorly.
You are tempting GOD, rather you realize it or not. Mankind was given a choice. To obey GOD or not obey GOD. Yes mankind could have remained perfect, but mankind chose not to. Mankind is responible for the choice that he made. Trying to complicate it does not make it simple.
God made a creature that would choose poorly.
God made an imperfect creature.
God, being omnipotent, could have made a creature that would choose wisely.
This is so simple.
Nemesio
13 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by checkbaiterI don't know where all these terms come from(omnipotent,etc.) but can we simply leave them out for a minute.
I don't know where all these terms come from(omnipotent,etc.) but can we simply leave them out for a minute. I think the stance that this website is giving, and I say this because I have read most of the articles and have been to many of their functions, is that God is the creator. From that point on, all He did was create good while giving free choice ...[text shortened]... the "spirit impresses" upon me. I hope this makes sense. If you have read Kushner, it might.🙂
I’m willing to leave it out altogether!!! 🙂
Now here is where the "gamble" comes in.
The notion of God taking a gamble with creation seems to be a common one in the Jewish literature, and I kind of like it.
That is, satan is defeated, etc. In the personal lives of people, their is an ongoing struggle, depending on the choices people make. Satan is destructive, shrewd, cunning, etc., but God is even wiser and can turn satan's evil into good.
I’m not coming at this from a Christian point-of-view, and so I am not big on the God-versus-Satan cosmic warfare scenario. I never—ever—read the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the NT. You, of course, as a Christian, do—and I’m not criticizing that. In the Hebrew Scriptures, ha shatan is the accuser or the adversary, the one who resists or the one who withstands. The word only occurs 19 times, and all but four of those in Job (which is the book Kushner was dealing with).
The following is from my BibleWorks program, under the morphology for shatan:
“The NT identifies Satan as the tempting power behind Adam's fall (Gen 3:15 in Rom 16:20). The OT makes no direct reference to this fact (citing "the serpent" ), though Satan's own fall may well have occurred with this same temptation (cf. creation's unimpaired goodness in Gen 1:31). Yet despite his loss of status, the "devil" (Gr. diabolic "slanderer" ) continued to exercise power on earth and to have access to heaven as ha-shaten "the accuser" (Job 1:9; Job 2:4; Zech 3:1), or simply "the spirit" (1Kings 22:19-22). Only in Ezra's (?) post-exile composition does satan appear as a proper noun, Satan (1Chr 21:1). Negative critics thus restrict ha-shatan to the role of a "prosecuting attorney" who became evil only under later Persian concepts of dualism (M. Burrows, Outline of Biblical Theology, p. 125). Yet the testimony of the entire OT makes clear his consistent hostility toward God and animosity toward man (Job 1:11; Job 2:3-5).”
In any event, the Hebrew interpretation(s) are more open and complex.
I cannot explain why some good people are lost or suffer nor why some bad people seem to prosper.
You know, after all our speculations—some of which can be fun and fruitful—I think this is the bottom-line “answer.” The people of Israel, too, speculated—and still speculate—and in the process have woven a wonderful tapestry of stories to ponder and study; and that’s all I really do: study and ponder. Sometimes I find insights that help me as I go through life….
I hope this makes sense. If you have read Kushner, it might.
Yep. 🙂
13 Nov 05
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdMaybe I can put these two together, so that there isn’t so much of a distinction: (1) There is some combination of qualities or processes in the natural order as God created it, that allows at least for the possibility to arise; (2) and a God that is active in the ongoing processes of the creation could subsequently decide whether to allow that outcome. I have been stressing the first part; you have been stressing the second part. Does that make sense?
[b]You claim that this means that God didn’t allow evil he created it. I guess I’m just not seeing the distinction.
Maybe I can put these two together, so that there isn’t so much of a distinction: (1) There is some combination of qualities or processes in the natural order as God created it, that allows at least for the possibility t ...[text shortened]... ion by going right to terminology that I think he understands…. No offense taken—my bad really.[/b]
Fair enough.
…once human beings come to that level of consciousness where they judge between good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, bondage/liberty, etc., that capacity and tendency is also going to extend into the moral realm—they (we) will know “know” righteousness and unrighteousness (to use the primary Jewish moral term).
I would argue that as soon as a child develops a sense of empathy they pretty much come to the “level of consciousness where they judge between good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, bondage/liberty”. This of coarse enters the realm of morals.
I don’t quite understand what you mean by “they (we) will know “know” righteousness and unrighteousness”. Perhaps you could explain what “know righteousness“ is.
I just want to illustrate how deep and variable the Hebrew language is, by pointing out that the “fall” story is not simply about morality, because tov and ra are not strictly moral terms, and neither was the English word “evil” originally. That is why, in Hebrew exegesis, there is no “one-and-only right” reading of the text, and never has been. That appears to be a Christian innovation, coming probably from the Greek side of things.
If it was a Christian innovation then wouldn’t there be only one Christianity? I believe that whether people agree with it or not, the scriptures are open to interpretation.
Sorry, that was a direct response to asp, to try to get an idea exactly where he’s coming from. But “tikkun” in kabbalah (which in Judaism is a major—the major?—theological stream (and is not new-age occult stuff), refers in part to the efforts of the “righteous man” ( ha tzaddik) to repair the fragmented world. But there’s a whole body of thought and literature behind it—just consider it an aside to asp: I thought I could short-cut the question by going right to terminology that I think he understands…. No offense taken—my bad really.
I appreciate your knowledge of the various religions. Though sometimes when you decide to educate the rest of us to all the different terminology, your posts become difficult to decipher.
Perhaps you could try to stick more to common language. Just a suggestion.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioHow about this, God made a creature with the capacity to choose wisely and become perfect. 😉
Yes. Man had a choice. He chose poorly.
God made a creature that would choose poorly.
God made an imperfect creature.
God, being omnipotent, could have made a creature that would choose wisely.
This is so simple.
Nemesio
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterI like this interpretation and the analogy you gave. The only point that
I don't know where all these terms come from(omnipotent,etc.) but can we simply leave them out for a minute. I think the stance that this website is giving, and I say this because I have read most of the articles and have been to many of their functions, is that God is the creator. From that point on, all He did was create good while giving free choice ...[text shortened]... the "spirit impresses" upon me. I hope this makes sense. If you have read Kushner, it might.🙂
I would disagree with is that the lost pieces are lost forever.
Personally, I think that Karma, or in the Bible the law of reap
what you sow has a lot to do with why some seemingly evil people
prosper, and why some seemingly good people suffer. Jesus refers to this when he says whatever ye measure so shall be measured unto you.
You’re right though. I don’t pretend to have all the answers either.
13 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI’m willing to leave it out altogether!!!
[b]I don't know where all these terms come from(omnipotent,etc.) but can we simply leave them out for a minute.
I’m willing to leave it out altogether!!! 🙂
Now here is where the "gamble" comes in.
The notion of God taking a gamble with creation seems to be a common one in the Jewish literature, and I kind of like it.
That is, s ...[text shortened]... hrough life….
[b]I hope this makes sense. If you have read Kushner, it might.
Yep. 🙂[/b]
[/b]You’re a good man. 🙂
The notion of God taking a gamble with creation seems to be a common one in the Jewish literature, and I kind of like it.
Yes, a gamble in the sense that it will lead to trouble, but also one with a fixed outcome.
I’m not coming at this from a Christian point-of-view, and so I am not big on the God-versus-Satan cosmic warfare scenario. I never—ever—read the Hebrew Scriptures through the lens of the NT. You, of course, as a Christian, do—and I’m not criticizing that. In the Hebrew Scriptures, ha shatan is the accuser or the adversary, the one who resists or the one who withstands. The word only occurs 19 times, and all but four of those in Job (which is the book Kushner was dealing with).
The following is from my BibleWorks program, under the morphology for shatan: “The NT identifies Satan as the tempting power behind Adam's fall (Gen 3:15 in Rom 16:20). The OT makes no direct reference to this fact (citing "the serpent" ), though Satan's own fall may well have occurred with this same temptation (cf. creation's unimpaired goodness in Gen 1:31). Yet despite his loss of status, the "devil" (Gr. diabolic "slanderer" ) continued to exercise power on earth and to have access to heaven as ha-shaten "the accuser" (Job 1:9; Job 2:4; Zech 3:1), or simply "the spirit" (1Kings 22:19-22). Only in Ezra's (?) post-exile composition does satan appear as a proper noun, Satan (1Chr 21:1). Negative critics thus restrict ha-shatan to the role of a "prosecuting attorney" who became evil only under later Persian concepts of dualism (M. Burrows, Outline of Biblical Theology, p. 125). Yet the testimony of the entire OT makes clear his consistent hostility toward God and animosity toward man (Job 1:11; Job 2:3-5).”
I think what checkbaiter was referring to was the struggle between good and evil that occurs in the hearts of people. Surely the OT recognizes this whether it is viewed “through the lens of the NT” or not.
Evil has to come from somewhere, so satan is the obvious culprit. Even if God made creation so that evil could exist, it would still be satan who uses it to destroy.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI would disagree with is that the lost pieces are lost forever.
I like this interpretation and the analogy you gave. The only point that
I would disagree with is that the lost pieces are lost forever.
Personally, I think that Karma, or in the Bible the law of reap
what you sow has a lot to do with why some seemingly evil people
prosper, and why some seemingly good people suffer. Jesus refers to this w ...[text shortened]... ll be measured unto you.
You’re right though. I don’t pretend to have all the answers either.
Don't forget that "lost pieces" can be ressurected.
Personally, I think that Karma,
Personally I have issue's with Karma, since it invovles reincarnation. Ever see Ground Hog Day? Funny movie...LOL...but not biblical.🙂
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
13 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI think what checkbaiter was referring to was the struggle between good and evil that occurs in the hearts of people. Surely the OT recognizes this whether it is viewed “through the lens of the NT” or not.
[b]I’m willing to leave it out altogether!!!
[/b]You’re a good man. 🙂
The notion of God taking a gamble with creation seems to be a common one in the Jewish literature, and I kind of like it.
Yes, a gamble in the sense that it will lead to trouble, but also one with a fixed outcome.
I’m not coming at this from a Christian ...[text shortened]... n if God made creation so that evil could exist, it would still be satan who uses it to destroy.
No. I meant an actual spiritual battle.Note the following verses...
Dan 10:12-13
12 Then he said to me, "Do not fear, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your heart to understand, and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard; and I have come because of your words.
13 "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.
(NKJ)
This was a battle between an Angel of God and a spirit being from Satan. Michael, another Angel had to assist.
Evil has to come from somewhere, so satan is the obvious culprit. Even if God made creation so that evil could exist, it would still be satan who uses it to destroy
Here was the first "gamble" if you will. Lucifer was not created evil. He was created with free will. He made a poor choice to rebel, however... God was prepared for this too.
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYour postings over the past year illitrate your views, and your feelings toward GOD. Your views and opinions let it be known your feelings toward GOD.
[b]The point is that you do not love GOD, therefore you cannot accept or agree.
And how would you know the first thing about my relationship with God?
You enjoy looking at it from man's point of view.
We are men, and this is enough. Some of us are interested in
knowing God, as in understanding him. Blind faith is not enough ...[text shortened]... In your case it means
developing a spirit of fear. How do you expect to know God like that?[/b]
In order to understand GOD,you must obey HIM. If you chosen to disobey THE WORD OF GOD, you will never understand the truth.
Yes I have blindfaith, in my trust in THE WORD OF GOD. Problely the same faith that those blind men that regained their sight. Through trusting and doing what JESUS CHRIST told them to do. That is what every follower of CHRIST is expected to do. Trust and do what CHRIST says. Are you?
13 Nov 05
Originally posted by NemesioGOD trusted man to tend to the garden while he went off. Man's actions only prove that man cannot be trusted. Yes GOD knew that man could make the wrong decision. Man believed the lie, that he would be like GOD. Without having any understanding or knowledge, that there was a reason that GOD said, "do not touch."
Originally posted by blindfaith101
[b]It was never for man to know evil. True the opportunity to sin was there. Man could have waited and spoke to GOD. Told GOD about the serpent. GOD trusted man. Trusted man enough that HE went elsewhere to rest from all HIS work.
If God trusted Man, then God couldn't have been omniscient because
Man didn ...[text shortened]... b] that Man would fall, but made Man that way anyway,
(that is, made Man imperfect).
Nemesio[/b]
I donot think you understand, There were at least three possibilities. The third being wait to hear from GOD, on the issue. That is what is expected of all those that believe and follow GOD. Hear what GOD says and do it.