100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: IS GOD RESPONSABLE FOR EVERYTHING OR NOT | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Is the Bible actual law now? Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of people who seem completely unable or unwilling to recognize any distinction between them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's ok BB, what im not sure of is are you asking QS this question above or me? i presume it's her correct? my answer as an x C - would have to be that they all can only see this their god as the father of christ/jesus, so thier is no room for belief in any other god who has a savior son, not jewish or muslim, it's thier way or the highway [of course they will refer to god as stating this also not their loving personal view of love the sinner hate the sin - hmmm?] The question was to QS. Was Jesus ever known for suggesting all must choose His way or Hit the Highway? That just doesn't seem like the Jesus I've learned about. Love the sinner, hate the sin... Human interpretation, I think. Though you asked QS the question - any christian would respond the same way. Did Jesus ever say it was his way or the highway? - Yes, he did. In the bible - John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me... This is a quote taken from the part of the gospel of John where Jesus explains that he will soon be going to the Father (the impending cruxifiction) and that He is the way to eternal life. He goes on to explain that He will send the Holy spirit to those who obey his commands. The discussion of your question is adressed in this, and subsequent chapters - from John 14 through chapter 16. Thank you, Eljay... I pretty much knew I could count on this answer. I certainly haven't studied enough of the Bible to know what others have quoted Jesus as saying. Nor do I have the desire to search for these specific documentations. No need to search for words to prove right or wrong. I believe there's truth in ALL words. Look... I truly don't wish to take anything away from anyone's Christian experience. Humans have always used words and text to back up what fits for them. I wonder why, if this non-Christian wishes not to debunk a thing about a Christian's belief, a Christian might seem to have a need to debunk all beliefs other than Christian. Splendidlife; As to your last statement - as a christian, I will respond, as I have a slightly different perspective on your observation. As to "debunking" christian beliefs, that is a matter to work out for yourself, as your understanding and belief - or lack of belief of christian concepts is not going to change my understanding or belief of them. My only concern is that if you profess an understanding of that which I believe as a christian, that you at least get it right as to what the concept is - so that you can make a decision about belief from an informed stance. In that, I will defend christainity when the concept is misrepresented. That is the extent of my concern though. It matters not to me if others have a belief other than christianity. I don't feel it necessary to debunk other beliefs, only when the pretext is that belief somehow "debunks" christianity. For instance - if one claims a belief in evolution, that does not support disclaiming the concept of creation as understood in christainity - for there is no more substanciated evidence for evolutionary "fact" than there is fact of the existance of God. So, I find that your perception of christians "needing" to debunk beliefs other than christianity, a "misrepresentation" of the agenda of a christian. The debunking is only necessary when the premise that the alternative belief is valid as an acceptable premise to debunk christianity. Then, it becomes a necessity to defend christianity against the false premise - not debunk the theory that attempts to establish it. So... I think... We've established that neither you nor I are here to debunk a single thing about each other's beliefs. What we've established, perhaps, is that we are against each other only if we oppose one another. Perhaps we don't appose one another at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's ok BB, what im not sure of is are you asking QS this question above or me? i presume it's her correct? my answer as an x C - would have to be that they all can only see this their god as the father of christ/jesus, so thier is no room for belief in any other god who has a savior son, not jewish or muslim, it's thier way or the highway [of course they will refer to god as stating this also not their loving personal view of love the sinner hate the sin - hmmm?] The question was to QS. Was Jesus ever known for suggesting all must choose His way or Hit the Highway? That just doesn't seem like the Jesus I've learned about. Love the sinner, hate the sin... Human interpretation, I think. Though you asked QS the question - any christian would respond the same way. Did Jesus ever say it was his way or the highway? - Yes, he did. In the bible - John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me... This is a quote taken from the part of the gospel of John where Jesus explains that he will soon be going to the Father (the impending cruxifiction) and that He is the way to eternal life. He goes on to explain that He will send the Holy spirit to those who obey his commands. The discussion of your question is adressed in this, and subsequent chapters - from John 14 through chapter 16. Thank you, Eljay... I pretty much knew I could count on this answer. I certainly haven't studied enough of the Bible to know what others have quoted Jesus as saying. Nor do I have the desire to search for these specific documentations. No need to search for words to prove right or wrong. I believe there's truth in ALL words. Look... I truly don't wish to take anything away from anyone's Christian experience. Humans have always used words and text to back up what fits for them. I wonder why, if this non-Christian wishes not to debunk a thing about a Christian's belief, a Christian might seem to have a need to debunk all beliefs other than Christian. Splendidlife; As to your last statement - as a christian, I will respond, as I have a slightly different perspective on your observation. As to "debunking" christian beliefs, that is a matter to work out for yourself, as your understanding and belief - or lack of belief of christian concepts is not going to change my understanding or belief of them. My only concern is that if you profess an understanding of that which I believe as a christian, that you at least get it right as to what the concept is - so that you can make a decision about belief from an informed stance. In that, I will defend christainity when the concept is misrepresented. That is the extent of my concern though. It matters not to me if others have a belief other than christianity. I don't feel it necessary to debunk other beliefs, only when the pretext is that belief somehow "debunks" christianity. For instance - if one claims a belief in evolution, that does not support disclaiming the concept of creation as understood in christainity - for there is no more substanciated evidence for evolutionary "fact" than there is fact of the existance of God. So, I find that your perception of christians "needing" to debunk beliefs other than christianity, a "misrepresentation" of the agenda of a christian. The debunking is only necessary when the premise that the alternative belief is valid as an acceptable premise to debunk christianity. Then, it becomes a necessity to defend christianity against the false premise - not debunk the theory that attempts to establish it. So... I think... We've established that neither you nor I are here to debunk a single thing about each other's beliefs. What we've established, perhaps, is that we are against each other only if we oppose one another. Perhaps we don't appose one another at all. did you mean appose or oppose? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
were talking on another thread about mans fall and some say its Satan who caused sin and others Adam and eve for eating and i who say it's god's fault!! So here's my case in a nut shell - god started creation, god knew how everything would go, god decided to allow sin to enter into existence - therefore god is responsible for sin. Sin the the falling short of rightiousness. It is the absense of something. How is the absense of something a thing which is created? Since God Himself is incapable of being unrightious - how is He responsible for sin? That is like blaming Ted Bundy's mother for the murders he commited because she gave birth to him. Isn't Ted responsible for his own actions? 
i should have posted all the other things already talked of on the other post but i was lazy - i'm tired of going over this, this is like the 5th time people have responded in similiar manner, i won't go through the explanation again. suffice to say i'll get the post where this all started from and then you can or others can reply to this post - your working partially blind. DID GOD CREATE everything? yes, did he create satan? yes, did he create the tree of good and EVIL? YES!! did he place man in the garden? yes if the tree had not been placed there, would man have been able to eat of it? NO! god did not sin! he created the potential of man sinning! this potential for sinning was gods doing! at best man had a 50/50/ chance! add satan to the story, and the odds of man sinning go up dramatically! who created and allowed satan there? man? no GOD! it was a set up and god ""IS"" responsible for the set up!! god created the atmosphere for all this to happen! would it have happened if this was not so? - NO! so the reason SIN entered into creation is because god allowed it! if he allowed it then he is guilty of creating the scenario! thus he in the long run is guilty of creating the sin of adam. case dismissed! Not to be picky - but it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So I'm failing to make the stretch of equating God's allowing something to happen to his being responsible for something happening. I tend to think of responsibility of following either an action or an omission. And given that - a purely subjective assessment. Again - I tend to draw the analogy of rightiousness and sin to that of heat and cold. We measure Heat. Cold is what we understand to be an absense of heat - as opposed to being an an opposite. We do not quantify cold, nor do we measure it. For all intents and purposes - it does not exist, yet we can understand it, but define it as a lesser quantity of heat. So too, it is with rightiousness. Rightiousness is an absolute - not something that is subjective. Anything that falls short of the absolute - is sin. It is not something that is created - just understood. Now - is one wants to view God as subjectively responsible for the existance of what is understood as sin, I suppose there isn't much of an argument to that. But that is viewing rightiousness from the standpoint of man, and not God. Because we may think that what we do is good, and right - does not necessarilty mean it is so in the absolute. It's only this way for a group who's subjective viewpoint is equated. Those who consider the only reality is perception. But are we looking for a response to your post subjectively - or in the absolutes of the biblical reference? I'm assuming because you are refering to "God" in your context as the one who references himself as the creator - than shouldn't the responses relect what is understood in the absolute? If so - God is the standard of rightiousness. If evil exists, it is not god who is doing it - or is responsible for it's being done, for it only exists for those who refuse to follow the heeds and warnings he has already established as a standard for rightiousness. Therefore, since the ability to perform as totally rightious beings is there for man to accomplish through the mere heeding of the Holy spirit, or the word of God, than God is now absolved of any blame for a lack of rightiousness, so defined in this thread as sin. well my friend, lets say your correct as to this being an absolute and not take it subjectively. there is no way around the fact that be it an absolute or not that god created everything, and in doing so allowed for sin to be an option of mans and the angels free will, it does not state that the angels were under any divine laws as such is the case with man yet sin still came about whether god created it or not, god is supposedly all knowing and if as i believe he new the end and worked backwords from there to bring everything about, then he foreknew that sin would be an outcome at the beginning both with the angels and later with man. he knew that sin would occur with mankind, that they would choose to sin and was ready with what was necessary to continue to bring about everything that was still yet to take place. i'm not saying that god created sin, i'm saying he is resposible for sin by creating. this to me makes him less than perfect in wisdom as all claim him to be. It's still a set up brought about by god to have a means to an end. and it shows he wanted man to fail so his purposes could be met. and all this was thought of and know before the first "let there be" if god has free will and the angels and man, then he surely should have know the consequences that would come from giving them such - so either god is a fool or stupid or cares about nothing but his own purposes and desires and if so is not worth worshipping or believing in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's ok BB, what im not sure of is are you asking QS this question above or me? i presume it's her correct? my answer as an x C - would have to be that they all can only see this their god as the father of christ/jesus, so thier is no room for belief in any other god who has a savior son, not jewish or muslim, it's thier way or the highway [of course they will refer to god as stating this also not their loving personal view of love the sinner hate the sin - hmmm?] The question was to QS. Was Jesus ever known for suggesting all must choose His way or Hit the Highway? That just doesn't seem like the Jesus I've learned about. Love the sinner, hate the sin... Human interpretation, I think. Though you asked QS the question - any christian would respond the same way. Did Jesus ever say it was his way or the highway? - Yes, he did. In the bible - John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me... This is a quote taken from the part of the gospel of John where Jesus explains that he will soon be going to the Father (the impending cruxifiction) and that He is the way to eternal life. He goes on to explain that He will send the Holy spirit to those who obey his commands. The discussion of your question is adressed in this, and subsequent chapters - from John 14 through chapter 16. Thank you, Eljay... I pretty much knew I could count on this answer. I certainly haven't studied enough of the Bible to know what others have quoted Jesus as saying. Nor do I have the desire to search for these specific documentations. No need to search for words to prove right or wrong. I believe there's truth in ALL words. Look... I truly don't wish to take anything away from anyone's Christian experience. Humans have always used words and text to back up what fits for them. I wonder why, if this non-Christian wishes not to debunk a thing about a Christian's belief, a Christian might seem to have a need to debunk all beliefs other than Christian. Splendidlife; As to your last statement - as a christian, I will respond, as I have a slightly different perspective on your observation. As to "debunking" christian beliefs, that is a matter to work out for yourself, as your understanding and belief - or lack of belief of christian concepts is not going to change my understanding or belief of them. My only concern is that if you profess an understanding of that which I believe as a christian, that you at least get it right as to what the concept is - so that you can make a decision about belief from an informed stance. In that, I will defend christainity when the concept is misrepresented. That is the extent of my concern though. It matters not to me if others have a belief other than christianity. I don't feel it necessary to debunk other beliefs, only when the pretext is that belief somehow "debunks" christianity. For instance - if one claims a belief in evolution, that does not support disclaiming the concept of creation as understood in christainity - for there is no more substanciated evidence for evolutionary "fact" than there is fact of the existance of God. So, I find that your perception of christians "needing" to debunk beliefs other than christianity, a "misrepresentation" of the agenda of a christian. The debunking is only necessary when the premise that the alternative belief is valid as an acceptable premise to debunk christianity. Then, it becomes a necessity to defend christianity against the false premise - not debunk the theory that attempts to establish it. So... I think... We've established that neither you nor I are here to debunk a single thing about each other's beliefs. What we've established, perhaps, is that we are against each other only if we oppose one another. Perhaps we don't appose one another at all. Well - I'm not exactly sure what your particular beliefs are, so I wouldn't know where to begin debunking them. I would assume from what I've read of your posts that we are in disagreement over the validity and origins of the bible. However - we agree on the Coen brother's films. They're great. Except for Ladykillers. Couldn't get past 5 minutes of that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Wed 10/15/08 10:13 PM
|
|
were talking on another thread about mans fall and some say its Satan who caused sin and others Adam and eve for eating and i who say it's god's fault!! So here's my case in a nut shell - god started creation, god knew how everything would go, god decided to allow sin to enter into existence - therefore god is responsible for sin. Sin the the falling short of rightiousness. It is the absense of something. How is the absense of something a thing which is created? Since God Himself is incapable of being unrightious - how is He responsible for sin? That is like blaming Ted Bundy's mother for the murders he commited because she gave birth to him. Isn't Ted responsible for his own actions?
i should have posted all the other things already talked of on the other post but i was lazy - i'm tired of going over this, this is like the 5th time people have responded in similiar manner, i won't go through the explanation again. suffice to say i'll get the post where this all started from and then you can or others can reply to this post - your working partially blind. DID GOD CREATE everything? yes, did he create satan? yes, did he create the tree of good and EVIL? YES!! did he place man in the garden? yes if the tree had not been placed there, would man have been able to eat of it? NO! god did not sin! he created the potential of man sinning! this potential for sinning was gods doing! at best man had a 50/50/ chance! add satan to the story, and the odds of man sinning go up dramatically! who created and allowed satan there? man? no GOD! it was a set up and god ""IS"" responsible for the set up!! god created the atmosphere for all this to happen! would it have happened if this was not so? - NO! so the reason SIN entered into creation is because god allowed it! if he allowed it then he is guilty of creating the scenario! thus he in the long run is guilty of creating the sin of adam. case dismissed! Not to be picky - but it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So I'm failing to make the stretch of equating God's allowing something to happen to his being responsible for something happening. I tend to think of responsibility of following either an action or an omission. And given that - a purely subjective assessment. Again - I tend to draw the analogy of rightiousness and sin to that of heat and cold. We measure Heat. Cold is what we understand to be an absense of heat - as opposed to being an an opposite. We do not quantify cold, nor do we measure it. For all intents and purposes - it does not exist, yet we can understand it, but define it as a lesser quantity of heat. So too, it is with rightiousness. Rightiousness is an absolute - not something that is subjective. Anything that falls short of the absolute - is sin. It is not something that is created - just understood. Now - is one wants to view God as subjectively responsible for the existance of what is understood as sin, I suppose there isn't much of an argument to that. But that is viewing rightiousness from the standpoint of man, and not God. Because we may think that what we do is good, and right - does not necessarilty mean it is so in the absolute. It's only this way for a group who's subjective viewpoint is equated. Those who consider the only reality is perception. But are we looking for a response to your post subjectively - or in the absolutes of the biblical reference? I'm assuming because you are refering to "God" in your context as the one who references himself as the creator - than shouldn't the responses relect what is understood in the absolute? If so - God is the standard of rightiousness. If evil exists, it is not god who is doing it - or is responsible for it's being done, for it only exists for those who refuse to follow the heeds and warnings he has already established as a standard for rightiousness. Therefore, since the ability to perform as totally rightious beings is there for man to accomplish through the mere heeding of the Holy spirit, or the word of God, than God is now absolved of any blame for a lack of rightiousness, so defined in this thread as sin. well my friend, lets say your correct as to this being an absolute and not take it subjectively. there is no way around the fact that be it an absolute or not that god created everything, and in doing so allowed for sin to be an option of mans and the angels free will, it does not state that the angels were under any divine laws as such is the case with man yet sin still came about whether god created it or not, god is supposedly all knowing and if as i believe he new the end and worked backwords from there to bring everything about, then he foreknew that sin would be an outcome at the beginning both with the angels and later with man. he knew that sin would occur with mankind, that they would choose to sin and was ready with what was necessary to continue to bring about everything that was still yet to take place. i'm not saying that god created sin, i'm saying he is resposible for sin by creating. this to me makes him less than perfect in wisdom as all claim him to be. It's still a set up brought about by god to have a means to an end. and it shows he wanted man to fail so his purposes could be met. and all this was thought of and know before the first "let there be" if god has free will and the angels and man, then he surely should have know the consequences that would come from giving them such - so either god is a fool or stupid or cares about nothing but his own purposes and desires and if so is not worth worshipping or believing in. If life here on earth were the end all and be all - then yes, it would seem like a foolish choice to allow sin to occur. But the fact remains that we were created with the capacity to be rightious in all of our acts and thoughts. We were then told (I use this term losely - as it was Adam and Eve who were actually told) to work the garden and take care of it. There was only one thing they were told not to do. Naturally - they did it. God knew they would - and had a plan in place for this occurance. You state that God showed a lack of wisdom in allowing man the chance to chose to fall short of absolute rightiousness. By this statement - you demonstrate that there is a superior wisdom that should have been in play here. Please - share this with me, as I'm curious to know this superior wisdom you are aware of that pre-empts that of the one who created man. Again - the idea of "responsibility" falls as a consequence of action. It can be demonstrated that food was created by God, and is absolutely necessary to man's survival. Yet if one choses to literally eat themselves to death - is God responsible for that? When man - given the gift of "freedom of choice", which is the right of all, abuses that gift - how is he not responsible? As to this: so either god is a fool or stupid or cares about nothing but his own purposes and desires and if so is not worth worshipping or believing in. You think that because God knew how man would behave and didn't come up with some alternative system that he is a fool? Well, I've asked Abra this a number of times without a response - and will now ask you: What should he have done? Since once again you claim that God is a fool - that demonstrates that you have a better idea as to how things should have been done within the realm of creation. What is that - for I'm quite curious to know of a better way towards creation. now keep in mind, that the goal of God's can be claearly seen that his creation would spend eternity in fellowship with him, so I expect your "better plan" to lead towards this end, else your claim of God's folly is but folly on your part, if eternity is spent separate from the influence of god. For without him, you are left with having to figure out how you are going to keep you lungs breathing and your heart going, because right now - you have absolutely no part in this process without Him. And if you think you do - take a moment and try to stop yourself from breathing by shear will, and keep your heart from beating for - oh, an hour or so. Let me know how that works out. 
Not allowed man the chance to make choices? How would life work out with that option? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay say's:
If life here on earth were the end all and be all - then yes, it would seem like a foolish choice to allow sin to occur. But the fact remains that we were created with the capacity to be righteous in all of our acts and thoughts. We were then told (I use this term loosely - as it was Adam and Eve who were actually told) to work the garden and take care of it. There was only one thing they were told not to do. Naturally - they did it. God knew they would - and had a plan in place for this occurrence. TRIBO REPLY: i included the angels in my statement and that they had sinned "before" man, so it is not inclusive of man alone. now as i see it the angels were created before man, so if this is true then he already knew before creating man that free will in the hands of someone less perfect than he supposedly is, was going to be a b!tch. someone perfect having free will is one thing, to gift it [as you say] upon a lesser creation is what is foolish to me. You act as if man was a little carbon copy of god - do you think he was? perfect in knowledge and wisdom and all else? i don't buy that if you do think so. I don't believe you can state with assurance that we[A&E] were made with the capacity to be totally righteous - where do you get that from? I see them being innocent of knowing good or evil in a way that they knew either before the fall or until the fall. i see no evidence to say that they would know some type of perfect righteousness? the rest i concur with as to "there" sin. But this does not excuse the creator from going through with his plan and then man being blamed for his shortcomings in this area, as i say this was a setup by god to fulfill his purposes and by doing it the way he did he is culpable for the results. there is no way around it my friend. ELJAY: You state that God showed a lack of wisdom in allowing man the chance to chose to fall short of absolute righteousness. By this statement - you demonstrate that there is a superior wisdom that should have been in play here. Please - share this with me, as I'm curious to know this superior wisdom you are aware of that preempts that of the one who created man. TRIBO: he who created your god - prime source. ELJAY: Again - the idea of "responsibility" falls as a consequence of action. It can be demonstrated that food was created by God, and is absolutely necessary to man's survival. Yet if one chooses to literally eat themselves to death - is God responsible for that? When man - given the gift of "freedom of choice", which is the right of all, abuses that gift - how is he not responsible? TRIBO: I'm not saying that man is not responsible for the act of ""SINNING"" - I'm saying god is responsible for creating the scenario that allows sin to enter the picture to begin with. no creation - no sin - no scenario to deal with, as to free will man does not have true free will anyway - he cannot do anything he wants any time he wants, man's will is very restricted always has been, he wasn't even given a choice as to where he would be in the beginning, god saw to all that not adam. He did not "choose" to name the animals, god brought them to him to name and said here name them. He did not choose a mate god chose her for him. He did not choose for Satan to tempt them god allowed it for them, he had very little say at all and he surely did not ask to be tempted by the devil. thus - god is resposible for everything that happened is happening or will happen - the buck stops with him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Wed 10/15/08 11:48 PM
|
|
were talking on another thread about mans fall and some say its Satan who caused sin and others Adam and eve for eating and i who say it's god's fault!! So here's my case in a nut shell - god started creation, god knew how everything would go, god decided to allow sin to enter into existence - therefore god is responsible for sin. Sin the the falling short of rightiousness. It is the absense of something. How is the absense of something a thing which is created? Since God Himself is incapable of being unrightious - how is He responsible for sin? That is like blaming Ted Bundy's mother for the murders he commited because she gave birth to him. Isn't Ted responsible for his own actions?
i should have posted all the other things already talked of on the other post but i was lazy - i'm tired of going over this, this is like the 5th time people have responded in similiar manner, i won't go through the explanation again. suffice to say i'll get the post where this all started from and then you can or others can reply to this post - your working partially blind. DID GOD CREATE everything? yes, did he create satan? yes, did he create the tree of good and EVIL? YES!! did he place man in the garden? yes if the tree had not been placed there, would man have been able to eat of it? NO! god did not sin! he created the potential of man sinning! this potential for sinning was gods doing! at best man had a 50/50/ chance! add satan to the story, and the odds of man sinning go up dramatically! who created and allowed satan there? man? no GOD! it was a set up and god ""IS"" responsible for the set up!! god created the atmosphere for all this to happen! would it have happened if this was not so? - NO! so the reason SIN entered into creation is because god allowed it! if he allowed it then he is guilty of creating the scenario! thus he in the long run is guilty of creating the sin of adam. case dismissed! Not to be picky - but it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So I'm failing to make the stretch of equating God's allowing something to happen to his being responsible for something happening. I tend to think of responsibility of following either an action or an omission. And given that - a purely subjective assessment. Again - I tend to draw the analogy of rightiousness and sin to that of heat and cold. We measure Heat. Cold is what we understand to be an absense of heat - as opposed to being an an opposite. We do not quantify cold, nor do we measure it. For all intents and purposes - it does not exist, yet we can understand it, but define it as a lesser quantity of heat. So too, it is with rightiousness. Rightiousness is an absolute - not something that is subjective. Anything that falls short of the absolute - is sin. It is not something that is created - just understood. Now - is one wants to view God as subjectively responsible for the existance of what is understood as sin, I suppose there isn't much of an argument to that. But that is viewing rightiousness from the standpoint of man, and not God. Because we may think that what we do is good, and right - does not necessarilty mean it is so in the absolute. It's only this way for a group who's subjective viewpoint is equated. Those who consider the only reality is perception. But are we looking for a response to your post subjectively - or in the absolutes of the biblical reference? I'm assuming because you are refering to "God" in your context as the one who references himself as the creator - than shouldn't the responses relect what is understood in the absolute? If so - God is the standard of rightiousness. If evil exists, it is not god who is doing it - or is responsible for it's being done, for it only exists for those who refuse to follow the heeds and warnings he has already established as a standard for rightiousness. Therefore, since the ability to perform as totally rightious beings is there for man to accomplish through the mere heeding of the Holy spirit, or the word of God, than God is now absolved of any blame for a lack of rightiousness, so defined in this thread as sin. well my friend, lets say your correct as to this being an absolute and not take it subjectively. there is no way around the fact that be it an absolute or not that god created everything, and in doing so allowed for sin to be an option of mans and the angels free will, it does not state that the angels were under any divine laws as such is the case with man yet sin still came about whether god created it or not, god is supposedly all knowing and if as i believe he new the end and worked backwords from there to bring everything about, then he foreknew that sin would be an outcome at the beginning both with the angels and later with man. he knew that sin would occur with mankind, that they would choose to sin and was ready with what was necessary to continue to bring about everything that was still yet to take place. i'm not saying that god created sin, i'm saying he is resposible for sin by creating. this to me makes him less than perfect in wisdom as all claim him to be. It's still a set up brought about by god to have a means to an end. and it shows he wanted man to fail so his purposes could be met. and all this was thought of and know before the first "let there be" if god has free will and the angels and man, then he surely should have know the consequences that would come from giving them such - so either god is a fool or stupid or cares about nothing but his own purposes and desires and if so is not worth worshipping or believing in. If life here on earth were the end all and be all - then yes, it would seem like a foolish choice to allow sin to occur. But the fact remains that we were created with the capacity to be rightious in all of our acts and thoughts. We were then told (I use this term losely - as it was Adam and Eve who were actually told) to work the garden and take care of it. There was only one thing they were told not to do. Naturally - they did it. God knew they would - and had a plan in place for this occurance. You state that God showed a lack of wisdom in allowing man the chance to chose to fall short of absolute rightiousness. By this statement - you demonstrate that there is a superior wisdom that should have been in play here. Please - share this with me, as I'm curious to know this superior wisdom you are aware of that pre-empts that of the one who created man. Again - the idea of "responsibility" falls as a consequence of action. It can be demonstrated that food was created by God, and is absolutely necessary to man's survival. Yet if one choses to literally eat themselves to death - is God responsible for that? When man - given the gift of "freedom of choice", which is the right of all, abuses that gift - how is he not responsible? As to this: so either god is a fool or stupid or cares about nothing but his own purposes and desires and if so is not worth worshipping or believing in. You think that because God knew how man would behave and didn't come up with some alternative system that he is a fool? Well, I've asked Abra this a number of times without a response - and will now ask you: What should he have done? Since once again you claim that God is a fool - that demonstrates that you have a better idea as to how things should have been done within the realm of creation. What is that - for I'm quite curious to know of a better way towards creation. now keep in mind, that the goal of God's can be claearly seen that his creation would spend eternity in fellowship with him, so I expect your "better plan" to lead towards this end, else your claim of God's folly is but folly on your part, if eternity is spent separate from the influence of god. For without him, you are left with having to figure out how you are going to keep you lungs breathing and your heart going, because right now - you have absolutely no part in this process without Him. And if you think you do - take a moment and try to stop yourself from breathing by shear will, and keep your heart from beating for - oh, an hour or so. Let me know how that works out.
Not allowed man the chance to make choices? How would life work out with that option? well isn't this precious, first you ask me what he should have done then add all these stipulations - wish i could have done that with your god 
OK god - i'll let you create but you can't do this or that - right? C'mon. when you really want my answer without stipulations i will be most willing to give them/it. i really dont think gods stupid eljay, i think that which is written in the book about him is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay say's: If life here on earth were the end all and be all - then yes, it would seem like a foolish choice to allow sin to occur. But the fact remains that we were created with the capacity to be righteous in all of our acts and thoughts. We were then told (I use this term loosely - as it was Adam and Eve who were actually told) to work the garden and take care of it. There was only one thing they were told not to do. Naturally - they did it. God knew they would - and had a plan in place for this occurrence. TRIBO REPLY: i included the angels in my statement and that they had sinned "before" man, so it is not inclusive of man alone. now as i see it the angels were created before man, so if this is true then he already knew before creating man that free will in the hands of someone less perfect than he supposedly is, was going to be a b!tch. someone perfect having free will is one thing, to gift it [as you say] upon a lesser creation is what is foolish to me. You act as if man was a little carbon copy of god - do you think he was? perfect in knowledge and wisdom and all else? i don't buy that if you do think so. I don't believe you can state with assurance that we[A&E] were made with the capacity to be totally righteous - where do you get that from? I see them being innocent of knowing good or evil in a way that they knew either before the fall or until the fall. i see no evidence to say that they would know some type of perfect righteousness? the rest i concur with as to "there" sin. But this does not excuse the creator from going through with his plan and then man being blamed for his shortcomings in this area, as i say this was a setup by god to fulfill his purposes and by doing it the way he did he is culpable for the results. there is no way around it my friend. ELJAY: You state that God showed a lack of wisdom in allowing man the chance to chose to fall short of absolute righteousness. By this statement - you demonstrate that there is a superior wisdom that should have been in play here. Please - share this with me, as I'm curious to know this superior wisdom you are aware of that preempts that of the one who created man. TRIBO: he who created your god - prime source. ELJAY: Again - the idea of "responsibility" falls as a consequence of action. It can be demonstrated that food was created by God, and is absolutely necessary to man's survival. Yet if one chooses to literally eat themselves to death - is God responsible for that? When man - given the gift of "freedom of choice", which is the right of all, abuses that gift - how is he not responsible? TRIBO: I'm not saying that man is not responsible for the act of ""SINNING"" - I'm saying god is responsible for creating the scenario that allows sin to enter the picture to begin with. no creation - no sin - no scenario to deal with, as to free will man does not have true free will anyway - he cannot do anything he wants any time he wants, man's will is very restricted always has been, he wasn't even given a choice as to where he would be in the beginning, god saw to all that not adam. He did not "choose" to name the animals, god brought them to him to name and said here name them. He did not choose a mate god chose her for him. He did not choose for Satan to tempt them god allowed it for them, he had very little say at all and he surely did not ask to be tempted by the devil. thus - god is resposible for everything that happened is happening or will happen - the buck stops with him. If a man did not have the capacity for total rightiousness, than the incarnation of Jesus would have been a contradiction unto itself. fr he suffered the ills of man and sinned not. The God to which I refer was not created. Which I thought we were refering to. As to the discussion of "free will". I am of the school of thought that there is no such thing as free will - which is why I chose the phrase freedom of choice and put it in quotes so that it couldn't be missed. I think we diverge on the idea of "responsibility" and who is accountable for it. Perhaps too - the concept of sin. You percieve sin as a quantifyable entity, whereas I see it as non-rightiousness. The absense of something rather than the measure of something. It then follows that God gets blamed for the short comings of man. I don't agree with this Pantheistic thought - as God is God, and Man is man. We are the creation, he is the creator. It is contrary to the biblical concept of God to equate the thoughts and actions of man to that of God, thereby reducing God's nature to that of man. This is man attempting to convince himself he knows the mind of God. Something the bible is quite exact on predicting that man would do. Doesn't this only reinforce the prophecy and validity of the text? Peter's second letter was devoted to this very subject. Just as you stated in an earlier post on another thread - the times they are a changing. Have we not seen from the time of our youth till now the overwhealming attempt of man to degrade and even dismiss God. I even see posts that claim that Hitler's final solution was due to his being a christian. Revising history to support the degrading of God. And with each generation, I find that fewer and fewer even bother to read the bible before they've formulated an opinion about it, and once having done that, they then use the text itself to support their pretext that God is less than he claims to be in the very text they are refering to. And this passes for sound reasoning? But I digress. Forgive me. I think to consider God to be anything less than rightious, Just, and the source of all truth and wisdom - is creating a new God, which to me - does not exist. So I often stand in full agreement with those who say that God does not exist, because once they proceed to describe the God they understand, it is quite evident that - that God does not exist; for the description always falls short of the testamony of those who describe to us the historical God to which they witnessed, who is refered to as the creator, and the source of all which is good. so rather than do the exegesis on who and what God is, they establish a presumption of the biblical God, and then proceed to refute it. If that isn't a logical fallacy, I don't know what is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eljay:
If a man did not have the capacity for total rightiousness, than the incarnation of Jesus would have been a contradiction unto itself. for he suffered the ills of man and sinned not. tribo: did he die for satans and the fallen angels sins also? if not who died for them anyone? as to freedom of choice i thought yu were using that as i - to be the same - if you read i use choice after each thing i bring up as to free will ok. i'll use your phrase in the future so there will be no misunderstanding. sorry i'm not pantheistic i dont believe god is everything or in everything like some say or believe. i will talk in private of this if you want. prime source is JB's wording, mine is usually creative force, that which brings forth creative matter or substance. this is not pantheistic. but for now i'm going to bed -
so we will continue this tomorrow my freind, thnx for your time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think man probably does have the ability to be totally righteous and perfect as well as totally flawed. But the state of being righteous seems like an opinion to me.
Why people think that a God "gave" mankind something called "free will" is beyond me. The will is innate and inherent in all consciousness. Will is part of the package in the manifestation of Prime source. Prime Source has the will to exist and it manifests itself in all things which naturally also have the will to exist. Innate in all living creatures is a desire to be free. Even a domestic dog who depends on humans hates to be chained or caged. Freedom is paramount. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tribo
did you mean appose or oppose? SL: At the time, I meant oppose. Now that I think about it, appose may fit just as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
were talking on another thread about mans fall and some say its Satan who caused sin and others Adam and eve for eating and i who say it's god's fault!! So here's my case in a nut shell - god started creation, god knew how everything would go, god decided to allow sin to enter into existence - therefore god is responsible for sin. in a matter of fact: whose final decision was it God, satan, or man? whose act was it God, satan, or man? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that's ok BB, what im not sure of is are you asking QS this question above or me? i presume it's her correct? my answer as an x C - would have to be that they all can only see this their god as the father of christ/jesus, so thier is no room for belief in any other god who has a savior son, not jewish or muslim, it's thier way or the highway [of course they will refer to god as stating this also not their loving personal view of love the sinner hate the sin - hmmm?] The question was to QS. Was Jesus ever known for suggesting all must choose His way or Hit the Highway? That just doesn't seem like the Jesus I've learned about. Love the sinner, hate the sin... Human interpretation, I think. Though you asked QS the question - any christian would respond the same way. Did Jesus ever say it was his way or the highway? - Yes, he did. In the bible - John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me... This is a quote taken from the part of the gospel of John where Jesus explains that he will soon be going to the Father (the impending cruxifiction) and that He is the way to eternal life. He goes on to explain that He will send the Holy spirit to those who obey his commands. The discussion of your question is adressed in this, and subsequent chapters - from John 14 through chapter 16. Thank you, Eljay... I pretty much knew I could count on this answer. I certainly haven't studied enough of the Bible to know what others have quoted Jesus as saying. Nor do I have the desire to search for these specific documentations. No need to search for words to prove right or wrong. I believe there's truth in ALL words. Look... I truly don't wish to take anything away from anyone's Christian experience. Humans have always used words and text to back up what fits for them. I wonder why, if this non-Christian wishes not to debunk a thing about a Christian's belief, a Christian might seem to have a need to debunk all beliefs other than Christian. Splendidlife; As to your last statement - as a christian, I will respond, as I have a slightly different perspective on your observation. As to "debunking" christian beliefs, that is a matter to work out for yourself, as your understanding and belief - or lack of belief of christian concepts is not going to change my understanding or belief of them. My only concern is that if you profess an understanding of that which I believe as a christian, that you at least get it right as to what the concept is - so that you can make a decision about belief from an informed stance. In that, I will defend christainity when the concept is misrepresented. That is the extent of my concern though. It matters not to me if others have a belief other than christianity. I don't feel it necessary to debunk other beliefs, only when the pretext is that belief somehow "debunks" christianity. For instance - if one claims a belief in evolution, that does not support disclaiming the concept of creation as understood in christainity - for there is no more substanciated evidence for evolutionary "fact" than there is fact of the existance of God. So, I find that your perception of christians "needing" to debunk beliefs other than christianity, a "misrepresentation" of the agenda of a christian. The debunking is only necessary when the premise that the alternative belief is valid as an acceptable premise to debunk christianity. Then, it becomes a necessity to defend christianity against the false premise - not debunk the theory that attempts to establish it. So... I think... We've established that neither you nor I are here to debunk a single thing about each other's beliefs. What we've established, perhaps, is that we are against each other only if we oppose one another. Perhaps we don't appose one another at all. Well - I'm not exactly sure what your particular beliefs are, so I wouldn't know where to begin debunking them. I would assume from what I've read of your posts that we are in disagreement over the validity and origins of the bible. However - we agree on the Coen brother's films. They're great. Except for Ladykillers. Couldn't get past 5 minutes of that one. If you like Coen Bros. humor, I'd imagine you could appreciate playful irreverence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think man probably does have the ability to be totally righteous and perfect as well as totally flawed. But the state of being righteous seems like an opinion to me. Why people think that a God "gave" mankind something called "free will" is beyond me. The will is innate and inherent in all consciousness. Will is part of the package in the manifestation of Prime source. Prime Source has the will to exist and it manifests itself in all things which naturally also have the will to exist. Innate in all living creatures is a desire to be free. Even a domestic dog who depends on humans hates to be chained or caged. Freedom is paramount. jb  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
were talking on another thread about mans fall and some say its Satan who caused sin and others Adam and eve for eating and i who say it's god's fault!! So here's my case in a nut shell - god started creation, god knew how everything would go, god decided to allow sin to enter into existence - therefore god is responsible for sin. in a matter of fact: whose final decision was it God, satan, or man? whose act was it God, satan, or man? All of the above... Trinity-ish
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence for G.O.D.
University of Arizona professor of psychology and neurology Dr. Gary Schwartz shared how he used science to conclude that nothing happens by chance and that some kind of organizing process must exist. Referring to this process as G.O.D. (Guiding-Organizing-Designing), he contended that an intelligent principle or consciousness is permeated throughout the universe, and "the all is in the small." In developing his position, he tested the claims of Christopher Robinson, the "Dream Detective," known for his precognitive experiences in the dream state. In an experiment they conducted, Robinson's dreams accurately predicted a series of locations in Arizona that Schwartz picked out, months after the dreams. This led Schwartz to believe an ordering process was taking place, and that our minds are a reflection of a great intelligence. He also discussed evidence he derived from Native American sandpaintings, which offer such complexity that we don't see the inherent patterns, as well as the number for Pi, which calculated out to millions of digits appears random, though it's always exactly the same order. Our mind is literally bigger than the universe because we can conceive it that way, he noted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence for G.O.D. University of Arizona professor of psychology and neurology Dr. Gary Schwartz shared how he used science to conclude that nothing happens by chance and that some kind of organizing process must exist. Referring to this process as G.O.D. (Guiding-Organizing-Designing), he contended that an intelligent principle or consciousness is permeated throughout the universe, and "the all is in the small." That is the holographic nature of the universe.
In developing his position, he tested the claims of Christopher Robinson, the "Dream Detective," known for his precognitive experiences in the dream state. In an experiment they conducted, Robinson's dreams accurately predicted a series of locations in Arizona that Schwartz picked out, months after the dreams. This led Schwartz to believe an ordering process was taking place, and that our minds are a reflection of a great intelligence.
The entire universe is vibrations of light and sound. They are projections and reflections of a great intelligence which is the universal mind. I agree with this person. 
He also discussed evidence he derived from Native American sandpaintings, which offer such complexity that we don't see the inherent patterns, as well as the number for Pi, which calculated out to millions of digits appears random, though it's always exactly the same order. Our mind is literally bigger than the universe because we can conceive it that way, he noted. "Our Mind" is the universal mind and it contains this universe and all universes. These are the mind worlds and they are dream-like holographic projections of the universal mind. Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evidence for G.O.D. University of Arizona professor of psychology and neurology Dr. Gary Schwartz shared how he used science to conclude that nothing happens by chance and that some kind of organizing process must exist. Referring to this process as G.O.D. (Guiding-Organizing-Designing), he contended that an intelligent principle or consciousness is permeated throughout the universe, and "the all is in the small." That is the holographic nature of the universe.
In developing his position, he tested the claims of Christopher Robinson, the "Dream Detective," known for his precognitive experiences in the dream state. In an experiment they conducted, Robinson's dreams accurately predicted a series of locations in Arizona that Schwartz picked out, months after the dreams. This led Schwartz to believe an ordering process was taking place, and that our minds are a reflection of a great intelligence.
The entire universe is vibrations of light and sound. They are projections and reflections of a great intelligence which is the universal mind. I agree with this person.
He also discussed evidence he derived from Native American sandpaintings, which offer such complexity that we don't see the inherent patterns, as well as the number for Pi, which calculated out to millions of digits appears random, though it's always exactly the same order. Our mind is literally bigger than the universe because we can conceive it that way, he noted. "Our Mind" is the universal mind and it contains this universe and all universes. These are the mind worlds and they are dream-like holographic projections of the universal mind. Interesting.
JB... There's so much of what you share here that fits for me. I'm glad you're on the planet. SL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
were talking on another thread about mans fall and some say its Satan who caused sin and others Adam and eve for eating and i who say it's god's fault!! So here's my case in a nut shell - god started creation, god knew how everything would go, god decided to allow sin to enter into existence - therefore god is responsible for sin. in a matter of fact: whose final decision was it God, satan, or man? whose act was it God, satan, or man? in a matter of fact- who brought about the ability for man to sin? decisions can only be made after the fact of god creating the scenario.the "act" could only be performed once god brought the means for the act to be performed, thus his resposibility. |
|
|
|
|
