>which is probably why snake skin shoes and boots are so friggin 'spensive.

diffwench that explains alot.... LOL

Why, spider, why did you just admit to that or were you trying to say abra was the twister, not you.

Spider wrote:
“You seem to take a lot of joy out of twisting what others are saying, why is that?”

And this comes straight from Mr. Twister himself.



Spider wrote:
“God didn't create evil, evil isn't a thing. Have you ever gone into a store and bought "evil"? Evil is word that describes an action. Since we all have free will, we choose to perform evil actions. God has nothing to do with evil, it is God's creations who do evil. Nobody "creates" evil, evil is NOT a thing.”

Sounds like you’re preaching Pantheism now. Have you changed religions lately?

Wench wrote:
“Eve would NOT have been too busy looking for new shoes to listen to the "devil/serpent" cause she hadn't listened to him yet and didn't know she was supposed to be wearing shoes cause she didn't learn fashion sense until after eating of the tree of knowledge, which is probably why snake skin shoes and boots are so friggin 'spensive.”

Ok everyone. The question has finally been answered by Wench.

It all comes down to the shoes and who’s feet they fit.

And, of course, cost effectiveness has to get in there too somehow.

Abra;

I have not read your entire OP - but I stopped here to comment, so we can get on the right track.

"In short, Eljay, you just can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either God screwed up, which flies in the face of all the attributes that are given to him, or he himself is responsible for creating evil and did it PURPOSEFULLY. This means that no one every had a choice in the first place! They had no choice but to rebel."

I was right with you up until this point. Your established premise is thus:

>>> Free choice is evil. <<<

This is the only conclusion that can be drawn by what you have stated, because it is the only thing that makes sense here. Your 4 initial attributes are acceptable premises are acceptable for the discussion at hand. What seems to follow from the argument is that the free choice of the angels to CHOSE to rebel - was indeed part of the "Master plan". I cannot argue with that point. What does seem to be in question here - is did the angels rebel because they HAD NO CHOICE in order to fullfill the master plan, or did the Master plan evolve because God KNEW the angels would revolt? This is not mutually exclusive as far as I can see. You have equated God KNOWING they would rebel - with their now HAVING NO CHOICE but to rebel - thus negating free will. Your argument fails at this juncture, unless you rebut this - or change your position.

Abra;

Now we come to the second point:

"So the Devil and his band of rebellious angels confront God and God prepares a place for them and casts them out of his heaven. They have been banished by the all-powerful God. That should be the end of them right? After all, God cast them out and made a place for them. That’s where he placed them, and that's where they should remain."

>>> Here again - you have captured the second essence of the consequesnce of rebellion - HOWEVER, in your statement you have concluded that "this is where he placed them - there they should remain." You are forcing your argument into a time continuum. God exists outside of time. We've extablished that with the initial 4 premises of God. The place God estalished for the Angels is - of course, Hell. A place of eternal separation from God - which would naturally conclude that there be eternal tourmoil, for there is no force to keep it from being such, as there is an absense of truth, and light. (the perfect part of our established premise) So - we know the angels are headed there, why must they be there now? Where does it say that this punishment was immediate? And to God - what is immediate? In your mind - the punishment for rebellion SHOULD have been to destroy the angels who rebelled. That is inconsistant with our perfect God. What seems logicall here - is to ponder the thought that God gave them their desires. They wished to rebell against God, chosing not to be within his presence and freely chosing evil as an action. He merely gave them over to their desires. At this point - they had not MORE choices. That is what you are meaning to say, I believe. For once the choice to rebel has been made - is it now not God's choice to honor that request - for eternity? And still be a "Nice Guy"?

Abra;

To further the discussion:

"If it is God’s Master Plan to test His creations to see if they will choose evil, then he had no choice but to create evil in the first place."

...Create evil - what is this? Give me an example of something that God created that is "evil". And spare me the evasive discussion of creating something that potentially has the ability to DO evil - just something that IS evil.

Eljay wrote:
“...Create evil - what is this? Give me an example of something that God created that is "evil". And spare me the evasive discussion of creating something that potentially has the ability to DO evil - just something that IS evil.”

As far as I’m concerned you’re just playing on semantics here.

I’m not saying that evil is a physical “thing”. I never implied that anywhere. That was your own misinterpretation. If evil is an action then so be it. I’m not trying to ‘define’ evil.

With this in mind then, if God created something that has the ‘ability’ to do evil, then God created evil.

Period.

Trying to get side-track into discussion of whether evil is a ‘thing’ or not is meat for a thread of its own.

I would argue that sin is NOT a 'thing' and is indeed an action as you say.

And therefore it makes absolutely NO sense to speak in terms of hating the sin and not the sinner. Because if the sin is the actions of the sinner then they are one in the same thing.

In other words, to hate that someone is gay, for example, is to hate THEM, because being gay is WHO they are!

The whole idea that you can separate the sin from the sinner implies that sin is a ‘thing’ which I've always disagreed with.

In fact, there is no such ‘thing’ as sin. All ‘sin’ is, is to disobey God. Period.

This actually flies in the face of the whole idea of Jesus coming and dying for the sins of man. If sin is nothing more than disobedience to God, then god can forgive sin by doing nothing more than forgiving it. Period. No need to make a big drama over it like as if someone else had to be ‘paid’ for the sins of man.

These kinds of self-inconsistencies run deep all though the Bible. If sin is nothing more than an action, then all that is required to forgive sin is the ‘act’ of forgiveness. Period. No need to commit another sin like “the crucifixion” to pay for the first. That would be like two wrongs making a right.

Face it. It doesn’t wash. The story is mythology and cannot be about an all-perfect God.

It was written by men to control the masses and put the fear of God in them.

Now THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE! And explains EVERYTHING! No contradictions at all. Let's face it, the story is mythology.

That's the only answer that makes any sense.

somebody posted:
"god is only the symbol for the things we dont understand and as science and technology progress god gets smaller and smaller"
================================================================

I'd say:
the more and more drugs you consume the smaller and smaller your brain gets.

I haven't read the whole thread, but the first post made by my good friend James.
I must be the most simplistic individual, but i think that all what my good friend James is trying to do is disproving God's nature in an algebraic manner.
And as I've said too many times that is exactly when you fail my friend, as far as my ignorance allows me to talk.
I believe that most of us try to come up with theories or different set of values that fit our own conciousness.
An ancient philosopher said: "adequatio intellectus et rei." for me that means that we make up our own ways of seeing things that will justify our way of living.
I'll leave it to my good friend ElJay to keep playing Aristotle and Plato with you.
God bless each one of you.

Miguel wrote:
“but i think that all what my good friend James is trying to do is disproving God's nature in an algebraic manner.”

Actually I’m not trying to prove or disprove anything about God.

On the contrary, I’m trying to show that what a particular book claims about God cannot be true.

I think this is a huge obstacle when discussing ancient literature. I try to address the writings objectively whilst others are attempting to defend the supposed “God” to which the writings are referring.

I guess it’s just not possible to make that transition. Once a person believes that the book IS God, then there’s no going back to view it objectively as a piece of literature ever again I suppose.

It’s like idol worship where the book itself has become the idol.

Interesting, now its not just Jesus, but the bible itself equaling "God". I'm really bad at math abra, but is there any equation out there that states 1+1+1=1 multiplied it would work, but not added, hmm-hmm-hmm-hmmmmm winnie the pooh biblical moments, well they did have <<<<<<<honeyyyyyy!!>>>>>>>

My good friend Abra wrote:
"On the contrary, I’m trying to show that what a particular book claims about God cannot be true."
================================================================
then again as I've stated tireless before, the bible is a Book written by men inspired by God. Ofcourse within its contest will have these men's inputs. I would be very naive if I'll say that God dictated the book word by word. Another thing the bible is not just one book, it is a set of books written in different times, to different audiences, and each writing served a diferent pedagogical purpose at the time.
Now the wonder and beauty of this book it's that it self-updates in each one of us who have an open heart to learn from its teachings, and for that only reason the Bible has an Universal character which gives it authority over the believers.
The Bible is the word of God which is telling us in each specific case what he wants from us.

Miguel wrote:
“Another thing the bible is not just one book, it is a set of books written in different times, to different audiences, and each writing served a diferent pedagogical purpose at the time.”

I agree with you completely on this. It is a collection of differnet writings. It’s not a single book. And everything in the Bible does not address the same issues.

There is actually a lot of good stuff in the Bible. However, I would argue that there are no moral or inspirational teachings in the Bible that can’t be found in other literature. The Bible offers nothing unique in that regard.

Even the moral teachings of Jesus were taught by various other sages in all parts of the world. Most of what he taught is just common sense! The golden rule by itself covers most of it, as do the 12 Karma laws.

The things that are unique to the Bible are really unimportant to moral and inspirational teachings anyway.

The things that are truly unique to the Bible are pretty much confined to the specific picture of how a person must view and worship God himself, and what the punishments will be if a person does not choose to worship God precisely as described. But those technical details have nothing to do with morals or the inspirational messages that are taught. On the contrary they are quite negative. Especially with respect to the threat of severe eternal punishment that God will bestow upon anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship him precisely as he demands.

Miguel wrote:
"and for that only reason the Bible has an Universal character which gives it authority over the believers"
================================================================
As I said authority over believers.
It's true that other books have similar things, that only confirms the fact that there is just one God teaching the same set of principles in different cultures.
But then again what I believe is just for me, and not to make people believe in the same I do.
And then again I strongly and firmly re-state that for me the Bible holds an universal authority to help me to judge what is good and bad under the merciful eyes of my Heavenly Father.

"With this in mind then, if God created something that has the ‘ability’ to do evil, then God created evil."

And this equates to my statement that you are saying free will is evil. Period. If that is what you believe, fine. You'd just as soon that God created robots. And because he didn't, he's evil. Yup. I follow that logic.

Eljay wrote
“What seems to follow from the argument is that the free choice of the angels to CHOSE to rebel - was indeed part of the "Master plan". I cannot argue with that point.
What does seem to be in question here - is did the angels rebel because they HAD NO CHOICE in order to fullfill the master plan, or did the Master plan evolve because God KNEW the angels would revolt? “

So in words and ideas that humans can relate to, what you are saying is this.

God had an idea, revelation, or otherwise pre-existent vision, prior to actually ‘creating’ anything.

In other words he imagined a reality sort of like a writer envisioning a book by writing an outline.

By asking questions, what is my goal, how can I achieve that goal and then began.

So what if I created some beings, I’ll call angels – ‘envisions’ the plan. Then allows precognitive type powers to watch what would take place after the creation.

One of the things that happens is some angels rebel. (stop assess, correct, get back on track to meeting objective)

Insert what if scenario, what if I create a new creature, I will call adam. Only adam is not happy being in God’s image, and desires to be like all the other creatures and have a mate.

OK, (stop, assess, correct, back on track to meet goals)

so God creates eve and allow the dream to continue. An angel becomes part of an unexpected equation,

(stop, assess, correct, back on track to meet original purpose)

So this continues until all that can possibly unfold has been envisioned, assessed, corrected to meet the required objective.

When satisfied, it is set into motion. Once set in motion there it can only unfold all as originally ‘designed’.

Including all the miscellaneous corrections just as envisioned. Those corrections are not seen as corrections to us, because they are part of the recognition of a ‘natural’ order of time. Of course time does not really exist so it’s merely an allusion to us.

Oh, but wait – how silly of me, this doesn’t work either as, obviously, there was need for adjustment throughout the original plan. Those adjustments were witnessed and written about in the Bible.

And on top of that, it’s obvious that ‘free will’ only goes as far as the next unexpected but correctable event in the outline of God’s perception.

You, see there is no winning this conversation, at least not with current Christian beliefs.

The beliefs themselves required that evolution take place, this is not a static plan.

In order to be a static plan, it can not be interfered with, or changed in any way. Static, would eliminate free will, as our free will is taken away, by the perception that was made reality without possibility of error.

But what Christians have done is to create a God who is interactive, and myths that prove the interaction and the interference AND correction all in the name of getting back on track to some ulterior goal. This is not All-knowing.

Eljay says:
“”This is not mutually exclusive as far as I can see. You have equated God KNOWING they would rebel - with their now HAVING NO CHOICE but to rebel - thus negating free will. Your argument fails at this juncture, unless you rebut this - or change your position.””

As Abra said, logically "you just can’t have it both ways."

We are predestined to take the actions we take, which is in keeping with the belief that God knows EVERYTHING,

or we have freewill, which causes glitches in the PLAN that God had, which then means God does not know EVERYTHING, and needs to interfere, to make adjustment. Which also means that God makes mistakes.

Abra said:
"If it is God’s Master Plan to test His creations to see if they will choose evil, then he had no choice but to create evil in the first place."

Eljay replied:
>...Create evil - what is this? Give me an example of something that God created that is "evil". And spare me the evasive discussion of creating something that potentially has the ability to DO evil - just something that IS evil.<

If the angel that tempted eve was following a course of action that God expected and knew, then God also expected and knew the action that eve would take, and what would follow.

To assume God was testing, just to see what action would be taken, is to believe that God did not know what action eve would take.

To continue to believe that God is TESTING on a continual basis, just to see the result, is confirmation that the belief that God knows everything is false. Why would God test, if God knows the outcome?

Either we have free will and God is adjusting as we go, which means God doesn’t know everything,

or we don’t have free will and all goes EXACTLY according to that which God KNOWS.

In which case, people are predestined to be who they are, to act as they do. This can not be construed as sin, as it must work precisely in this manner in order for God to know everything.

Actually, it’s a very good substantiation of one of the greatest rules – judge not - it would make sense that a kind and respectful creator would ask us not to judge others, considering the fact that they can not change their actions or who they are.

To do so, would change the plan and make God less than all-knowing.

How can it be seen in any other logical way?

Abra;

"This actually flies in the face of the whole idea of Jesus coming and dying for the sins of man. If sin is nothing more than disobedience to God, then god can forgive sin by doing nothing more than forgiving it. Period. No need to make a big drama over it like as if someone else had to be ‘paid’ for the sins of man.

These kinds of self-inconsistencies run deep all though the Bible. If sin is nothing more than an action, then all that is required to forgive sin is the ‘act’ of forgiveness. Period. No need to commit another sin like “the crucifixion” to pay for the first. That would be like two wrongs making a right."

>>> It is a perception of "self-inconsistancies", because you don't agree with the standards that were set - that the punishment for sin is death. While I realize that you are not the only person who thinks this isn't "fair", or whatever it is that displeases you, your idea of "Well if man sins - just forgive him" also sets up the question of "Why have any sort of morals, if God is just going to forgive any transgression?" It also now begs the question of "Well some sins are worse than others, soc He should forgive the "lesser" ones, and punish the really bad ones". Any of these idea's relys on man to set the standard. As you have. Are you saying we should put our trust in your opinion of how tings should be? Because obviously (to you) your standards are higher than God's.

As absurd as this may sound to you - this is what your posts exhibit to me. This is not to say that I think I have it all figured out - I don't, but you state your idea's emphatically, with little to nothing to support what you believe other than your own sense of right and wrong. And call others dillusional and confused when they can't follow your logic. I don't find your conclusions to the question of life and God to be any more compelling than I do that of Mary Baker Eddy, L. Ron Hubbard, Josph Smith, Jim Jones, or Charles Manson.