Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Assuming the flood was real
joz
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 52 (23997)
11-24-2002 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by forgiven
11-23-2002 2:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
actually by "family" i was including them all
Its a shame that genocidal semitic tribal deity drowned Ham, Shem and Japeth`s in laws then.....
Silly bugger I thought he was supposed to be omniscient or something....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 2:31 PM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 11:53 PM joz has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 52 (24137)
11-24-2002 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by joz
11-24-2002 12:17 AM


As to the purpose of the flood and the good it did the earth. Here's a thought i never know why God something or at least rarely, that could be due to our very small limitations in seeing whole pictures. Man as always is running out ahead of God, he has a plan, they won't listen and follow it so... they are degressing much quicker morally than fits in God's plan, and thinking they are very wise, probably lot's of sexual imorality , convoluted ideas that they think are very brilliant. Overall decay. Again this wasn't God's plan so he took one Godly man and wiped out the rest. Slow the process kill all the rotten ones keep the one good one start over. Makes sense i think like taking the rotten potatoes out of the bag to preserve the life of the other ones. God knows that man is going to continue to sin aterwards but he has slowed the decay. To suit his plan. He starts now with a Godly man but we see how fast man forgets about God again thinking he's wise.
*note this is just a theory but i'm pretty sure it's just to keep man in check with God's plan
Also a note i'm not a scientist and this theory has probably been mentioned, but i think when you read after the flood and get to the tower of babel where again man is trying to run ahead and wreck it all again it says God confused their tongues and scattered across the planet. My wife and i were thinking of all this underground water that had come up during the flood, think that must have left some cavities. Wondering if this is the landmass split because the integrity of the plates was screwed with these cavities and God used this to split them, and scatter the people.
So maybe all these things the creation scientists are trying to credit to the flood are alot in due to the tower of babel and don't fit into the flood. That would be two major things on the earth. Wouldn't be surprised if the other miracles caused lasting effects ass well. just a thought for anyone interested in science,
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 12:17 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by David unfamous, posted 11-25-2002 5:03 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 52 (24165)
11-25-2002 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by funkmasterfreaky
11-24-2002 11:53 PM


I can't imagine the world was any more screwed up than it is now, so the piont of the flood can only be justified by those tired old words, 'It's all part of Gods plan.'
Of course, if everything is Gods plan, and she knows everything past present and future, then the fact we haven't been drowned again means we're not doing anything wrong. Yipee!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 11:53 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 11-25-2002 5:41 AM David unfamous has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5951 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 52 (24167)
11-25-2002 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by David unfamous
11-25-2002 5:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
I can't imagine the world was any more screwed up than it is now, so the piont of the flood can only be justified by those tired old words, 'It's all part of Gods plan.'
Of course, if everything is Gods plan, and she knows everything past present and future, then the fact we haven't been drowned again means we're not doing anything wrong. Yipee!

Hah! Just wait. The Rapture is right around the corner. Yep, gonna happen any day now. All those sinners will be sorry. Fourth time's a charm - God will definitely get it right THIS time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by David unfamous, posted 11-25-2002 5:03 AM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 12:51 PM Quetzal has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 52 (24231)
11-25-2002 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Quetzal
11-25-2002 5:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
I can't imagine the world was any more screwed up than it is now, so the piont of the flood can only be justified by those tired old words, 'It's all part of Gods plan.'
It was just an idea. The world will be even more screwed up yet. I really believe that there was a plan involved know i'm not supposed to say that. It also seems to me alot of things happened for reason of symbolism. Also a part of God's plan to help us understand things later on. I wasn't trying to justify the flood just answer the question what good did it serve. As far as the rest of my post i wouldn't mind someone smart giving it some criticism so i know if this idea is even close to valid.
quote:
then the fact we haven't been drowned again means we're not doing anything wrong. Yipee!
He promised never to destroy the whole earth with a flood again. Personally wish he would have let the ark crew rot too the world is a disgusting place.
quote:
Hah! Just wait. The Rapture is right around the corner. Yep, gonna happen any day now. All those sinners will be sorry. Fourth time's a charm - God will definitely get it right THIS time...
I don't think God screwed up the other times i think i pointed out how long it took for the decendants of Noah to turn away from God. No God has not screwed up man has. Like i said before alot of things happened as symbolism for later things. I'm not so sure i even believe in a rapture. i believe in a second coming of Jesus but the rapture as i have heard it said i'm not sure is correct.
------------------
saved by grace
{Fixed quote - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 11-25-2002 5:41 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Quetzal, posted 11-26-2002 2:41 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5951 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 21 of 52 (24357)
11-26-2002 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky
11-25-2002 12:51 PM


Hi Funk:
quote:
I don't think God screwed up the other times i think i pointed out how long it took for the decendants of Noah to turn away from God. No God has not screwed up man has. Like i said before alot of things happened as symbolism for later things. I'm not so sure i even believe in a rapture. i believe in a second coming of Jesus but the rapture as i have heard it said i'm not sure is correct
Weell, that depends on how you look at it.
First, we have the confusion over the whole tree of knowledge thing. God creates this guy, then realizes he missed a bet, and creates a mate for him. The two of them screw up, God gets mad, and kicks them out of the garden (in a fit of pique?). Not a good thing for an allegedly omniscient being, but hey, maybe the whole free will thingy was an experiment gone bad. Rather than simply fix the problem or admit that She'd set up an impossible situation (how could that happen if She knows everything that's going to come to pass?) She curses them and their descendants through all eternity. Strike one.
Things go bad from the start. Because of the Adamic curse coupled with the free will thingy, humans start acting, well, like humans. God gets mad AGAIN, decides the whole thing is a wash, and wipes out everybody except Noah. Coincidently wiping out all other life on the planet - life that had little or no say in how humans behaved. Once more, not a very good thing for a supposedly omniscient being. Strike two.
Somehow the Earth manages to repopulate itself. Eventually, humans start getting ideas again - building a tower to heaven just to show they could. God, once again, decides that the experiment isn't working out according to plan, but rather than wiping everything out, decides to re-curse everyone to make it impossible for people to ever work together in the future on such a great undertaking, scattering them all over the planet with different languages. Another failure of the so-called omniscient being - She couldn't see this coming? Strike three.
And now, humans once more are getting too big for themselves. Whereas YOU might not be enamored of it, there are a lot of fundamentalists under the big tent that believe the "last days" are upon us. God once more realizing that things didn't work out, will haul all of the good little believers to heaven, and wipe out everything else - one final time: the Rapture. Strike four.
None of the above is the action of an omniscient, omnibenevolent being. It's the action of a petulant two-year old that didn't get its way - and who has the power to destroy planets. It can't plan. It can't implement. It gets mad when things don't go according to Its wishes and throws tantrums. It has evidently no clue whatsoever what It's doing. Worse, It isn't even acknowledged by the majority of Its supposed creation because of its inability to provide unequivocal evidence of its existence - and the ones that DO acknowledge It are so fragmented that they can't agree on much of anything (probably relates to that tower mess).
Believe in a tyranical infant terrible if you wish. Doesn't strike me as something to fall down and worship, however.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 11-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 12:51 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 12:09 PM Quetzal has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 52 (24419)
11-26-2002 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Quetzal
11-26-2002 2:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
First, we have the confusion over the whole tree of knowledge thing. God creates this guy, then realizes he missed a bet, and creates a mate for him. The two of them screw up, God gets mad, and kicks them out of the garden (in a fit of pique?). Not a good thing for an allegedly omniscient being, but hey, maybe the whole free will thingy was an experiment gone bad. Rather than simply fix the problem or admit that She'd set up an impossible situation (how could that happen if She knows everything that's going to come to pass?) She curses them and their descendants through all eternity. Strike one.
bigggg misconception there.. quite a few, really... your strike one thingy is based on what? an inate understanding of God and his plans? or is it simply a perception that if it was *you* you'd have done it differently?
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil... what was its purpose? in bridge there's a bid known as "preemptive"... the meaning is obvious, it's simply a bid made to take away bidding space from the opponents... now let's suppose a few things (i can suppose as easily as you can)
go back to the discussion on the singularity being God's thoughts... now then, he looked at all possible universes he might create, under all possible conditions, with all possible people created at all possible times... given his criteria for man (created in his image, with his attributes), he settled on the only possible universe that satisfied his attributes
he knew the inherent danger of creating man with divine attributes (even tho limited in scope or degree), especially if one of those attributes was free will... yet he judged the danger, and the outcome, worthwhile because of the goals he'd set... what goals? an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him...
now then, God knew what would have to happen for his goal, his plan, to be realized... he wanted the least amount of time possible to elapse for his plan to come to fruition... and he had a free agent already in place, one who hated God, one who wanted to *be* God... he knew this free agent would do everything he could to ruin what God had wrought
given man's free will and satan's hatred, God knew when man would "fall"... maybe, without that tree, the fall would occur hundreds or thousands of years later... maybe not... suppose that's the case... why not preempt satan? why not plant that tree in the garden, why not tell adam not to eat of it lest he die? doing so in no way interfered with adam's choice to obey or disobey, it simply gave him an opportunity to do that which he'd do anyway, yet at a time in history that would result in the least possible time of evil on earth
take it a little further... without eve, maybe adam would resist satan for a very long time... yet, in the end, still succumb to temptation... there are so many lessons that tie in with this, not the least of which is God's implanting in us the doctrine of "headship" (a whole 'nother bible study)...
so we have adam being told not to eat of that tree, we have eve being told by adam what God had said, we have satan telling eve "surely not!! how can a fruit so lovely, one that the eating of which will make you into a god, be wrong to eat? c'mon eve, what's the harm in knowing all that God knows?"
eve wasn't convinced... she called adam over... "hey hon, this snake makes some good points... i mean, *look* at this apple... he says it's delicious, he says we can eat it and be as god, wise and smart and everything... whatcha say babe, wanna give it a try?"
adam looks at eve... hmmm... he looks at the apple, back at eve... he sighs (men, know that sigh? *grin*)...
"i dunno sugar, hath not God said the day we eat we'll surely die?"...
"yeah well, this snake ain't dead and he says God wasn't being upfront with you... besides, i'm not real sure what it means to die, are you?"...
"well no, not really... i dunno sweetie.. you think it'll be ok?"
and eve smiles real toothily or something, "i think so, uh huh... me first?"
"ok *sigh* go ahead"
and she did... and adam did... and that very day mankind was doomed to be born dead, spiritually dead to God... "unless man is born again..." Jesus would say later... "from above" the translators say... "of the Spirit of God" it means..
by choosing to listen to satan rather than adam, eve was deceived... by choosing to listen to eve rather than God, adam sinned... but what was the point?
it's my belief that (for free will reasons already stated) the fall would have occurred at some later time and place... it's my belief that this would result in God's goals being realized after even more time and evil... it's my belief that this episode was necessary for man's eventual salvation, because unless an awareness of what "for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" meant, man would persist in his view that he can save himself... it's my belief that adam and eve is a lesson in history, one God taught in several different places at several different times... "trust your head, who is Christ... trust your God, who is the eternal I AM... listen and heed and believe my words"
when people ask me "if there is a God, why is there evil, why doesn't he wipe it out, do something about it" i always say, "he is... he's been doing it from the beginning... it takes time, but only as much time as absolutely necessary"
speculation? well *sure* it is... but heck, if you can speculate so can i... but my speculation is based on a whole lot of scripture and on whatever i believe God has chosen to allow me to understand concerning that scripture

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Quetzal, posted 11-26-2002 2:41 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Chara, posted 11-26-2002 1:21 PM forgiven has not replied
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 11-27-2002 2:35 AM forgiven has replied

Chara
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 52 (24430)
11-26-2002 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by forgiven
11-26-2002 12:09 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
it's my belief that (for free will reasons already stated) the fall would have occurred at some later time and place... it's my belief that this would result in God's goals being realized after even more time and evil... it's my belief that this episode was necessary for man's eventual salvation, because unless an awareness of what "for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" meant, man would persist in his view that he can save himself... [/B][/QUOTE]
I like how you explained all this forgiven. I just wanted to add that this event also happened in order that man would be without excuse. We can never say to God, "Yes well, if you hadn't made things so tough here, then I could have easily trusted and obeyed you." This event in history shows that just isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 12:09 PM forgiven has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5951 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 52 (24544)
11-27-2002 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by forgiven
11-26-2002 12:09 PM


Hi forgiven:
Excellent explanation! The course of events is pretty much what I figured, although you certainly "told the story" in a MUCH more interesting idiom than the writers of Genesis managed. Well done!
However, you actually seem to add weight to my (somewhat tongue in cheek) contention, which is based around the fact that either:
1) God is omniscient and knew the outcomes from the git go and so set up a no-win situation for humanity KNOWING FROM THE START that things would inevitably become bollixed up. You attempted to pass this off as "part of God's plan", but neglected to explain how cursing humanity to degeneration and suffering unto the nth generation would ultimately lead to, in your words "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him..."
2) God DIDN'T really know what would happen - and hence isn't omniscient, ergo not divine. Obviously, I don't expect you to accept this one.
The "strike one" thingy wasn't necessarily referring to God making an error, but rather that it was the first strike against humanity. Humans screwed up - God punished them, rather than fixing the problem. A problem He knew would occur from the beginning. God SET THE WHOLE THING UP deliberately, knowing humanity would fail. Not real big on the benevolence bit, is He?
Another question along the same lines, so I understand what you're trying to say here. You state "God knew when man would "fall". In other words, for no doubt good and sufficient reasons, God deliberately created something that was inherently flawed, that would at some point crash. So out of some misplaced sense of mercy or whatever, in order to get the bad stuff over quickly so that humans could make lots of other humans to worship him (I assume from your post that sex was verbotten in the garden for some reason), He deliberately set up a preemptive bid situation where humans were GUARANTEED to screw up - because of the parameters established by God himself. All so he could boot them from paradise? This is supposed to be a good thing?
Even granted that this was the case, and for some ineffable reason God felt this was the right thing to do at the time, why was it apparently necessary to wipe out all life on the planet a few years later - when His creation turned out to do exactly what He'd predicted? This makes absolutely no sense.
"it's my belief that this episode was necessary for man's eventual salvation, because unless an awareness of what "for all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" meant, man would persist in his view that he can save himself..." If I understand what you're telling me, the original created humans were thrown out of paradise as an object lesson? "Do what I say or else, and here's the proof"? Wouldn't it have been simpler just to let Adam and Eve get it on to have lots and lots of babies in Paradise? I have a feeling it would have generated lots and lots of really thankfull people without all the murder, death and mayhem that God inflicted on humanity down through the ages. Satan could have played the temptation game for eternity without much success. Just makes God seem even more petty and cruel. Ah well, what can you expect from a myth?
You guys would be a lot better off jettisoning the Old Testament (maybe keep some of the prophecy stuff so that you can claim Jesus as the Messiah, etc), and holding on to the New, which has most of the good stuff about peace and loving your neighbor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-26-2002 12:09 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 10:56 AM Quetzal has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 52 (24594)
11-27-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Quetzal
11-27-2002 2:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
1) God is omniscient and knew the outcomes from the git go and so set up a no-win situation for humanity KNOWING FROM THE START that things would inevitably become bollixed up. You attempted to pass this off as "part of God's plan", but neglected to explain how cursing humanity to degeneration and suffering unto the nth generation would ultimately lead to, in your words "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him..."
there are certain assumptions that, it seems to me, must be made if you're asking for the reason i believe you're asking, ie. because you want to know.... some are, how powerful is God? what attributes does he possess?
now let's assume i'm correct (granted, nobody is close to knowing the whole picture).. God is all those omni things, including benevolent, but so much more... think of almost anything you'd describe as 'transcendental' or 'metaphysical' (defined as, not suspended in time and space)... most if not all of those things exist, in my view, because they are part of God's nature... logic being an example (with the 'omni' added)... just *assume* that to be so, a priori, ok?
the universe we're in, in that case, is the *only* universe it was possible for God to actualize IF he was intent on creating a free race of beings with all attributes of divinity (i don't want to keep saying this for you christians out there, but i am *not* implying we are gods)... we do not know, we can't know, whether or not it was even possible for God to create a world *at all* unless it contained each and every one of the (what craig terms) 'trans-worldly damned'... given omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience, we have to assume that God created the only and/or best given self-imposed limitations
it's very hard explaining the role of the o.t. in christian theology, or why things were as they were... however, i happen to believe that nothing happened at all that didn't have some bearing on Messiah's appearance on the earth... from adam and eve to hosea and gomer, from cain and abel to elijah and jezebel, from noah to job, all things had an aim of teaching man why Jesus was necessary...
once God actualized this creation, the end result that seems so hard to understand, "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him.." was only true *because* of the exact nature of his plan... had one thing not occurred, some other thing would or would not occur, and every change in the life of every person ripples thru history...
in the end it does come down to trust, i know that.. and i know how hard it sometimes is to trust God, even for me... i so want to be in charge, i so want to be in control of my own destiny... sometimes i also get discouraged and lose sight of exactly what sin does and why God created us knowing he'd have to die to redeem us...
quote:
Another question along the same lines, so I understand what you're trying to say here. You state "God knew when man would "fall". In other words, for no doubt good and sufficient reasons, God deliberately created something that was inherently flawed, that would at some point crash.
well i think if you'll accept the assumptions above re God's attributes you'll admit the "inherently flawed" statement might not be so... God created the world perfect, adam included... it is *so* hard making a person understand just how destructive sin is... if i could put it in terms of a disease, maybe it'll make more sense... then again, maybe not... imagine a virus on earth that not only killed the host but spread to all matter around that host... not only that, it spread from bits of matter to bits of matter... this virus not only ages and degenerates a person's body, but her mind and spirit and soul... more than this, it degenerates the very ground on which she stands... *everything* is affected by this viruse...
now, it's a temporal virus.. the only known cure for it resides outside of time... yet, while inside time neither it nor its consequences can be escaped... your question is, then why did God allow the existence much less the spread of such a deadly disease?
the key is, he *allowed* it... yes, he knew what giving adam the freedom to choose would mean... but adam was created with the ability to withstand this disease, he had all the physical and spiritual weapons needed to defeat sin and death... just as i have a choice in utilizing any tool or weapon at my disposal, adam had such a choice... he chose wrongly.. but we can't judge adam... free will was necessary, but once granted *any* human would sooner or later fall
so God knew this yet still created... why? he obviously judged the end result to be worth it... he knows what we have awaiting us, he has perfect knowledge and he acts out of perfect love... if you can accept that as true merely for the sake of argument, you have to logically conclude that whatever he allowed *must* have been the very best he could do given the conditions he imposed upon himself... that's what christians do, we trust God... not perfectly and not all the time
Q, it isn't surprising that you don't trust him, i don't know if you even grant his existence... but please don't make the mistake of assuming he didn't have perfect reasons for creating a perfect world and putting in it a pefect man while knowing all along what would happen
did you know the bible calls Jesus the last adam? yup, 2 corinthians 45 or something i think, tho i'd have to look it up... this is very important... Jesus had to have *total* humanity, he had to have all the tools adam had, he had to face all the temptations adam (and all mankind) face... he had the choice every step of the way to obey or disobey his Father... the very moment he was arrested in the garden of gethsemane he could have escaped... "you don't *take* me," he said, "i could call down 12 legions of angels if i wanted, my Father would do as i ask... you think he *wants* to see me tortured and bleeding and murdered on a cross? but i won't... no, you aren't taking me, the Son goes willingly wheresoever he chooses"
quote:
So out of some misplaced sense of mercy or whatever, in order to get the bad stuff over quickly so that humans could make lots of other humans to worship him (I assume from your post that sex was verbotten in the garden for some reason), He deliberately set up a preemptive bid situation where humans were GUARANTEED to screw up - because of the parameters established by God himself. All so he could boot them from paradise? This is supposed to be a good thing?
now Q, when you categorize God's mercy as "misplaced" is it possible it only seems so from your view, your limited knowledge of all things? btw sex wasn't verbotten in the garden... there was simply no stigma attached to it, no pruient thoughts associated with the naked body... and yes Q, "booting" them from paradise (tho i prefer to think of them leaving voluntarily, given the choice adam had) was necessary for eventual and eternal salvation
quote:
Even granted that this was the case, and for some ineffable reason God felt this was the right thing to do at the time, why was it apparently necessary to wipe out all life on the planet a few years later - when His creation turned out to do exactly what He'd predicted? This makes absolutely no sense.
i understand... now remember, different christians hold different views on different subjects... as long as we're consistent in the majors that shouldn't cause the problems we see within the church... on this particular subject, it ties in with genesis 6 and 2 enoch (my view only)...
God had put angels in charge of the earth, called watchers (according to enoch, which was accepted as scripture by jude and peter, and probably by all n.t. authors - they're the only two to mention it)... they took human form and taught man things... different ones (i believe there were 12 of them) taught different things... they also bred with human women... the watchers themselves were worshipped as gods, you can imagine the power they had... their offspring were giants and geniuses, men and women of whom legends were written
remember the discussion about why the tree existed? i said maybe without it evil would exist far longer? there is an optimum time limit for evil to exist on earth... whatever that limit is, the existence of offspring of angels affected it... the offspring, called nephium i think, were capable of everything humans-only were capable of, but vastly superior in strength, intellect... and capacity for good AND evil
quote:
You guys would be a lot better off jettisoning the Old Testament (maybe keep some of the prophecy stuff so that you can claim Jesus as the Messiah, etc), and holding on to the New, which has most of the good stuff about peace and loving your neighbor.
actually i almost do that.. i don't jettison it, of course, it is the word of God... but when it's understood in the context of teaching the coming of Christ, and when it's taught in that light, it's better... it's amazing how much of it is about Jesus... especially the story of the exodus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 11-27-2002 2:35 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-27-2002 4:27 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 28 by Quetzal, posted 11-28-2002 7:09 AM forgiven has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 52 (24644)
11-27-2002 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by forgiven
11-27-2002 10:56 AM


quote:
actually i almost do that.. i don't jettison it, of course, it is the word of God... but when it's understood in the context of teaching the coming of Christ, and when it's taught in that light, it's better... it's amazing how much of it is about Jesus... especially the story of the exodus
Yay. The o.t is awesome stuff i love it, the problem arises quite often that the o.t is misrepresented as rules and regulations for Christians and it's not, it's a history of God revealing himself to us, and of his redemption of man. The New testament is a guidline for those living under the period of grace. So we need both parts. They serve seperate functions .
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 10:56 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 6:26 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 52 (24670)
11-27-2002 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by funkmasterfreaky
11-27-2002 4:27 PM


^^^^^^^^^^
yayus...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-27-2002 4:27 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5951 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 28 of 52 (24762)
11-28-2002 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by forgiven
11-27-2002 10:56 AM


Hi forgiven: Great response. I’ll try and follow it closely in my reply, but may cut bits out for simplicity. If you feel I’ve cut out something important, let me know.
quote:
there are certain assumptions that, it seems to me, must be made if you're asking for the reason i believe you're asking, ie. because you want to know.... some are, how powerful is God? what attributes does he possess?
Well, I do want to know what you think. However, to be honest it’s more on the lines of an attempt to understand the apparent cognitive dissonance practiced by True Believers when questioned on the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible — especially in the OT and notably in Genesis. I’m interested in how you rationalize the problem. Part of that does relate to the attributes you claim for your deity and how those attributes are manifested in the actions claimed for that deity. It’s more curiosity than anything else — I’m not seeking reasons to believe. With no insult intended, it holds the same fascination for me as the whys and wherefores, not to mention the whats, relating to the interractions of a complex community in a rainforest. Think of it as an inquiry into memetic evolution.
quote:
now let's assume i'm correct (granted, nobody is close to knowing the whole picture).. God is all those omni things, including benevolent, but so much more... think of almost anything you'd describe as 'transcendental' or 'metaphysical' (defined as, not suspended in time and space)... most if not all of those things exist, in my view, because they are part of God's nature... logic being an example (with the 'omni' added)... just *assume* that to be so, a priori, ok?
Hmm, how much does your explanation depend on the acceptance of the existence of transcendental or metaphysical things or attributes? I’m not sure I CAN accept this a priori, but for the moment I’ll suspend disagreement.
quote:
the universe we're in, in that case, is the *only* universe it was possible for God to actualize IF he was intent on creating a free race of beings with all attributes of divinity (i don't want to keep saying this for you christians out there, but i am *not* implying we are gods)... we do not know, we can't know, whether or not it was even possible for God to create a world *at all* unless it contained each and every one of the (what craig terms) 'trans-worldly damned'... given omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience, we have to assume that God created the only and/or best given self-imposed limitations
Okay, however it looks like we’ve already hit a snag. With the various omni- attributes, why would it be necessary for God to impose limits? IF God was in fact omnipotent, any limitations He imposed on himself (assuming such a paradox was possible), would have the effect of negating or constraining His omnipotence — which would mean He was no longer omnipotent.
On the other hand, if you mean the limitations were imposed on the universe, this appears to imply there were constraints placed on the creation. In which case, there would seem to be deliberate constraints placed on free will, which doesn’t square with the idea of free will in the first place. On the other hand, you mention that God was limited in what he could create IF you accept the universal constraint argument — which again speaks against divine omnipotence.
quote:
once God actualized this creation, the end result that seems so hard to understand, "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him.." was only true *because* of the exact nature of his plan... had one thing not occurred, some other thing would or would not occur, and every change in the life of every person ripples thru history...
I agree that this follows from your argument (not agreeing that your argument is sound, mind you). However, what you’ve posted here completely denies the existence of free will. God’s plan was immutable — He set up the conditions so that regardless of what occurred, humanity would fulfill the destiny that God had intended from the start. This begs the question, of course, of why it was necessary to obliterate all life on the planet, then a bit later curse humanity a second time because of the tower thing. If humans were just following God’s plan (meaning no free will), then why destroy them? If they had deviated from the plan (via free will) to such an extent that God felt compelled to erase them, then by your own explanation either: God knew it would happen (if not, He isn’t omniscient); couldn’t prevent it (meaning not omnipotent); wanted it to happen (not omnibenevolent); or insane (not omnilogical); or pick one. This is what I’m talking about — when you say things like the above from the stance of already believing the whole divine bit, it makes some sort of sense. Looking at it from the outside (as it were), it makes no sense whatsoever — and every time someone tries to rationalize it, it makes even less sense.
quote:
well i think if you'll accept {paragraphs snipped for brevity — refer to the original post} christians do, we trust God... not perfectly and not all the time
This is, of course, the crux of the entire problem. God created a perfect universe — but then allowed sin to enter in. God evidently PLANNED for sin to corrupt creation — all in some attempt to establish conditions that would later return to perfection. A very, very odd way of going about things. The fact that God not only allowed this corruption virus to exist, but created it in the first place, speaks volumes about God. All so that at some point after death we can have the opportunity to worship this bloodthirsty demon for all eternity? And this makes sense to you?
quote:
Q, it isn't surprising that you don't trust him, i don't know if you even grant his existence... but please don't make the mistake of assuming he didn't have perfect reasons for creating a perfect world and putting in it a pefect man while knowing all along what would happen
No, I don’t grant his existence (see the Christian nation thread for what would be necessary to grant His existence). Yeah, that’s my problem: you claim he had perfect reasons for creating a perfect world — and then deliberately establishing the conditions that would permit thousands of years of misery and death — in the quest for perfection? This is omnibenevolence? I shudder to think of the conditions that would prevail if He didn’t have perfect love for us.
quote:
Q: So out of some misplaced sense of mercy or whatever, in order to get the bad stuff over quickly so that humans could make lots of other humans to worship him (I assume from your post that sex was verbotten in the garden for some reason), He deliberately set up a preemptive bid situation where humans were GUARANTEED to screw up - because of the parameters established by God himself. All so he could boot them from paradise? This is supposed to be a good thing?
F: now Q, when you categorize God's mercy as "misplaced" is it possible it only seems so from your view, your limited knowledge of all things? btw sex wasn't verbotten in the garden... there was simply no stigma attached to it, no pruient thoughts associated with the naked body... and yes Q, "booting" them from paradise (tho i prefer to think of them leaving voluntarily, given the choice adam had) was necessary for eventual and eternal salvation
I’ll grant you that it makes absolutely no sense from my limited knowledge. Hey, I’m only human. But it appears you’re granting my point: God deliberately set up the situation so that Adam had no choice but to fail — because it was God’s plan that misery, sin, and suffering be allowed. This is omnibenevolence?
quote:
Q: Even granted that this was the case, and for some ineffable reason God felt this was the right thing to do at the time, why was it apparently necessary to wipe out all life on the planet a few years later - when His creation turned out to do exactly what He'd predicted? This makes absolutely no sense.
I’m sorry forgiven. Although the discussion of Enoch and the 12 angel/demon/whatever was very interesting, I can’t see how it answers this point. Could you clarify how the response applies? Thanks.
quote:
Q: You guys would be a lot better off jettisoning the Old Testament (maybe keep some of the prophecy stuff so that you can claim Jesus as the Messiah, etc), and holding on to the New, which has most of the good stuff about peace and loving your neighbor.
F: actually i almost do that.. i don't jettison it, of course, it is the word of God... but when it's understood in the context of teaching the coming of Christ, and when it's taught in that light, it's better... it's amazing how much of it is about Jesus... especially the story of the exodus
Can I take this to mean you’re not an inerrantist? If that’s the case, what parts of the bible are permissible to ignore? Also, which parts are parable and which parts are real history? (Might be better to put that bit in another thread). Finally, if you aren’t an inerrantist, why do you insist on a literal reading of Genesis — the whole problem with the bible is trying to rationalize the nastiness in the OT with the relative benignity of the NT. It’s almost like they were discussing two completely different deities. Without the OT, you wouldn’t have to worry about trying to explain how all of the really heinous acts attributed to God square with the omnibenevolent perfect love argument. You might be able to make a case using just the NT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-27-2002 10:56 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 11:16 AM Quetzal has replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 52 (24795)
11-28-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Quetzal
11-28-2002 7:09 AM


hi Q, i wrote a reply to this that took over an hour.. i wasn't done even then, and my isp cratered... i hit 'reconnect' and *immediately* lost the browser window and the reply.. so i'll try again but it will be much shorter.. my mind only works in spurts heh heh heh.. i too cut out much, let me know if i overlooked something you need
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
Well, I do want to know what you think. However, to be honest it’s more on the lines of an attempt to understand the apparent cognitive dissonance practiced by True Believers when questioned on the apparent inconsistencies in the Bible — especially in the OT and notably in Genesis. I’m interested in how you rationalize the problem.
i'll go ahead and answer the last paragraph here also, see your post for that paragraph... i don't attempt to reconcile any difficulties, and i'm not nearly smart enough to know what to cut out and what to keep from the o.t.... i believe it is God breathed, that man wrote what God instructed at various times and in various places...
i will say that if you can read a little of paul you'll see that in each city he visited he started in the synagogue... he attempted to convince the jews that Jesus was the Christ, and he used scripture to do that (notably prophecy concerning Christ)... this scripture might have some importance in convincing a gentile, but even if so it won't compare to the importance it has for jews...
the o.t. contains much that i enjoy reading and pondering, it teaches me something new every time i read portions of it... but to me its main value lies in how so much of it shows God's future economy, how much shows redemption through Christ.. as a gentile, i can only understand the o.t. in light of the new... as a matter of fact (don't break out the stones please), if a person never heard of the o.t. it would have no bearing on her salvation...
so the truth is, the n.t. is for the christian, not the old... not in terms of salvation... here's an analogy, sorta... imagine you're in the 3rd row of a theater... it's dark but not completely... you can see the stage, you can make out the furniture on the set, you can see the outlines of people moving about... then the lights come on and you see everything clearly, sharply... the dark was the o.t., the light is the new... you couldn't know or understand exactly what you were looking at until the lights came on...
quote:
Okay, however it looks like we’ve already hit a snag. With the various omni- attributes, why would it be necessary for God to impose limits? IF God was in fact omnipotent, any limitations He imposed on himself (assuming such a paradox was possible), would have the effect of negating or constraining His omnipotence — which would mean He was no longer omnipotent.
the "limits" i spoke of were only limits by virtue of his inability to act in a way counter to his nature... assume for the moment one God... further assume he's the God i've described, with the attributes i gave... ok?... that is *him*, that is God... any other being without the attributes of God is not God... see?
if God is omnilogical, even acting in an illogical way would make him not himself... so the limits weren't limits on his power, they weren't limits in that sense of the word... maybe i should have said God doesn't act contrary to his nature... but that doesn't quite capture my thought either.. he *can't* act counter to his nature... to do so to any degree at all would make one or another attribute less than 'omni'... see?
quote:
On the other hand, if you mean the limitations were imposed on the universe, this appears to imply there were constraints placed on the creation. In which case, there would seem to be deliberate constraints placed on free will, which doesn’t square with the idea of free will in the first place. On the other hand, you mention that God was limited in what he could create IF you accept the universal constraint argument — which again speaks against divine omnipotence.
i hope 'constraints' and 'limits' can be better understood now... i meant them only as they relate to God's nature...
quote:
once God actualized this creation, the end result that seems so hard to understand, "an eternity populated with more people than can be numbered, all of whom freely chose to trust him.." was only true *because* of the exact nature of his plan... had one thing not occurred, some other thing would or would not occur, and every change in the life of every person ripples thru history...
I agree that this follows from your argument (not agreeing that your argument is sound, mind you). However, what you’ve posted here completely denies the existence of free will.
i'm gonna try to recreate what i wrote earlier, the one i lost.. but i can't promise i will since i expended a lot of thought on it.. i'll do my best, cause i think you really are interested in my thoughts (even if for merely 'memetic evolution' reasons *grin*)
wait... hmmm... it occurs to me that the best way i can do this is by asking you to use your imagination for just a little while... try to accept a new paradigm for a relatively short duration... try (it may be very difficult) to say "ok, God exists.. now then, how can i reconcile free will with foreknowledge? how does predestination tie in?"... if you can do that (i don't know you nor your ability to think outside the box for some duration of time, especially if that box concerns God), then try to read up a little on 'counterfactuals of creaturely freedom' and on 'God's middle knowledge' ... oh, look also for 'newcomb's paradox'... why say "God exists" for this exercise? because i think if you don't it won't really hit home why or how those things solve any problem... iow, by reading them from your present perspective i think you might not see it the way i do
this saves me from having to recreate all i wrote and gives you the advantage of having those things explained by people far more qualified than i... you don't, of course, have to come away believing what they write... merely an understanding of what i've been trying to say will be ok... not that you *don't* understand, simply that i haven't done a good job of explaining...
sorry Q, i have to go read up on turkey carving *G*... try to get to those if you have time and we'll talk later.. and i apologize for this effort, i really did write *reams* of stuff... sigh

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Quetzal, posted 11-28-2002 7:09 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2002 10:43 AM forgiven has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5951 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 30 of 52 (24932)
11-29-2002 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by forgiven
11-28-2002 11:16 AM


Hi forgiven:
quote:
hi Q, i wrote a reply to this that took over an hour.. i wasn't done even then, and my isp cratered... i hit 'reconnect' and *immediately* lost the browser window and the reply.. so i'll try again but it will be much shorter.. my mind only works in spurts heh heh heh.. i too cut out much, let me know if i overlooked something you need
Ouch. I hate it when that happens. Speaking as someone who has more than their fair share of problems with bad ISP connections, I truly sympathise. I do want to say that I very much appreciate the time and effort you're putting into this discussion. Your willingness to engage in rational discussion on the subject speaks very highly of your personality. As Augustine said, "de motu creaturae rationalis in Deum".
Okay, so much for the nice guy bit...
quote:
i'll go ahead and answer the last paragraph here also, see ... {paragraphs snipped for brevity} ... you couldn't know or understand exactly what you were looking at until the lights came on
Actually, that's a pretty fair way of looking at the differences between the OT and NT. I'd heard the bit about Paul before - the early evangalists were looking to convert the Jews, and in fact explicitly excluded everybody else. It wasn't until later that Christianity expanded its mandate as it were. If I was of a cynical bent, I'd wonder if it wasn't because they weren't have a lot of success with the Jews of the time...
Anyway, this brings me back to my point on that section. To wit, given all of the really unpleasant bits in the OT, many of which put God in a pretty bad light, it still strikes me as self-defeating for the fundamentalists to base their opposition to science (thinking specifically geology/age of the earth, astronomy/age of the universe, and evolution/diversity of life), for example, on a part of the bible that really doesn't add much to what they're trying to teach - morality and salvation. The only logical explanation I've heard is that stealing the OT whole cloth from the oral and written traditions of the people they were interested in converting was a way of co-opting their writings to make the whole thing more palatable. Unfortunately, that gets modern Christians in a real bind when they have to try and rationalize the OT with the NT - not to mention with the findings of the new idea of scientific inquiry. Which, all things being equal, has probably cost more than a few (de)converts. Like I said, without the OT, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place - because only by insisting on the absolute immutability of the WHOLE bible - OT and NT combined - that the opposition has anything to argue about.
quote:
the "limits" i spoke of were only limits by virtue of his inability to act in a way counter to his nature... assume for the moment one God... further assume he's the God i've described, with the attributes i gave... ok?... that is *him*, that is God... any other being without the attributes of God is not God... see?
if God is omnilogical, even acting in an illogical way would make him not himself... so the limits weren't limits on his power, they weren't limits in that sense of the word... maybe i should have said God doesn't act contrary to his nature... but that doesn't quite capture my thought either.. he *can't* act counter to his nature... to do so to any degree at all would make one or another attribute less than 'omni'... see?
Hmm, interesting. I agree that, given the attributes commonly assigned to God, anything that went counter to any one of those attributes would essentially deny the fundamental divinity of the being in question. However, by the statement "he *can't* act counter to his nature", you are definitionally placing constraints on his omnipotence. Look, I'm not trying to get into one of those endlessly spiralling arguments about "could God create an immovable object that even He couldn't move?". I'll leave that to the Jesuits - who seem to spend an inordinate amount of time arguing things like this.
I'm not sure the question even HAS an answer - it appears to be one of those things that just "has to be taken on faith". I'll buy that defense, believe it or not. However, before you jump at the opportunity, remember my original, oft-repeated contention: taking something on faith automatically removes it from the realm of science. If it isn't science, it can't by definition be taught in science class. And, by the same token, "faith" cannot be used as an explanation OR rationale for observed phenomena. IOW, you can take it on "faith" that the Flood occurred, that Adam and Eve were actual creatures, that God *poofed* everything in the universe into existence in six literal days 6000 years ago. However, you cannot in the same breath claim that your faith disproves the scientific observations that there is no evidence of a global flood, there is no evidence that A&E existed, or that the Earth is some 4.5 ga old - or that the diversity of modern life can be explained by evolution.
Ya'all really should consider a "revelation" that the OT isn't part of the "real" bible - just an old-time misinterpretation of what God really wanted humanity to know...
quote:
i'm gonna try to recreate what i wrote earlier, the one i lost.. but i can't promise i will since i expended a lot of thought on it.. i'll do my best, cause i think you really are interested in my thoughts (even if for merely 'memetic evolution' reasons *grin*)
{cut to end}
I AM honestly interested in your thoughts - you express yourself very well, so it's a pleasure to read your posts. Doesn't mean you'll ever convince me...
I'm willing to read whatever you suggest on the subjects you mentioned. However, rather than me flailing around the Internet not really knowing what the heck I'm looking for, if you could point me in the appropriate direction (a couple/three essays, for instance), that discuss the areas of:
- reconciling free will with foreknowledge
- predestination
- counterfactuals of creaturely freedom
- God's middle knowledge
- and the ever-popular Newcomb's Paradox
Now, I can't - in fact, won't - guarantee that I'll accept for the sake of argument that "God exists". To be honest, you haven't really made much of a compelling reason why I should. OTOH, since I am interested in the subject (mildly - I'm much more enamored of biology, paleontology and natural history, to be honest), I'm more than willing to read what you suggest and then discuss it with you. You're probably right that I won't see it from your perspective or even understand it the way you do, but then again I may see where you're coming from (next best thing?) which would quite nicely answer my question.
Hope you had a good turkey day. I did the same yesterday: we had 16 people for dinner with all the trimmings. I really ate too much...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by forgiven, posted 11-28-2002 11:16 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by forgiven, posted 11-29-2002 4:13 PM Quetzal has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024