Printable View
I don't quite catch your angle.Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
So if I killed god, everything would be dandy?
If this is an attempt at, "Kill the creator and then the ideas, definitions, and moral beliefs of the creations will matter," then I'll be inclined to tell you it's a phalacious argument.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Saint of Killers
If the robots stopped performing their predertimined tasks, I would consider that my fault, as I created them. If they started doing something I didn't want them to, I obviously didn't design them correctly. And if I claimed to love them, as many religions assert god loves us, I wouldn't just destroy them, I'd try to fix them."
Well two points:
One, we are not robots. We have FREE WILL. According to the Bible, God gave us free will and a choice, to obey him or to sin. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they choose to sin and we have had a sinful nature since then. So your robot theory is not fully correct.
Secondly, to answer your question about God loving us, he does. To go along with your robot analogy, you said u would fix your robots? Well, consider Jesus to be the "fixing" that we need (even though we are not robots).
Dang, Captain veggie steals my thunder...
Ha-HA! This is exactly what I should have said! Excelent point, Spartan!Quote:
Originally posted by spartan300
Secondly, to answer your question about God loving us, he does. To go along with your robot analogy, you said u would fix your robots? Well, consider Jesus to be the "fixing" that we need (even though we are not robots).
Even though you designed the robots to deviate from their purpose and be destroyed, you, in your infinite wisdom, offered them a chance at reconciliation...all they need do is accept it.
Jesus Christ is the "patch" that we need to reconcile with God.
So, you see, He does love us, Saint. Even if you don't want Him to, He does.
I feel like such an idiot for not mentioning Christ! Great catch, Spartan! I only wish you had posted earlier. :)
Not at all!Quote:
Originally posted by spartan300
Dang, Captain veggie steals my thunder...
Christ is the foundation of our life!
If I had continued debating those points devoid of Christ...
Thanks! Christ needed to be brought up and I was way off the mark!
Steal your thunder?! Heck no! You stole mine! ;)
He needed to send down his son to "fix" us. God didn't make us right the first time. Therefore, god is imperfect.
I know your response is going to be along the lines of "It only seems that way! God created us with that imperfection in mind, and knew he would need to send down his son to save us, and etc. etc. etc." It's not really worth arguing with you on this stuff, because all you need to say is that I don't understand god. But somehow, you can understand that I can't understand god. And all your knowledge of god comes from other humans (including the Bible), who are also imperfect. Also: because you admit that humans aren't perfect, why are you so positive in your beliefs? Can you not admit that there is the tiniest chance that what you believe can possibly be wrong, being an imperfect being? That's one of the other things I don't get about people who are 100% sure of their religious conviction. They say that everything bad that happened is the fault of humans, that humans screw up religion, but they won't admit that their beliefs could be wrong, being falliable creatures.
Proverbs 21:30
Human plans, no matter how wise or well advised, cannot stand against the LORD.
Untrue. Here's what I would say:Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
He needed to send down his son to "fix" us. God didn't make us right the first time. Therefore, god is imperfect.
I know your response is going to be along the lines of "It only seems that way! God created us with that imperfection in mind, and knew he would need to send down his son to save us, and etc. etc. etc." It's not really worth arguing with you on this stuff, because all you need to say is that I don't understand god. But somehow, you can understand that I can't understand god.
A perfect creator can yeild two types of creation. The reason for this limitation is that a creator cannot create something greater than itself. It can, however, create something less than itself. Therefore, God could have created perfect beings, or imperfect beings. One that was as Himself, or one that was less than Himself. Choosing to create something less than Himself in no way makes Him imperfect.
And I most certainly can understand that you don't understand God. That is precisly why I'm offering clarification. If you were seeking God, and desired to know the truth, it is my duity to share with you. And so I have shared. ;)
Wrong again:Quote:
And all your knowledge of god comes from other humans (including the Bible), who are also imperfect.
Matt. 16:13-17
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" "Well," they replied, "some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets." Then he asked them, "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being."
If your supposition was the case, than everyone who read the Bible would believe as I do. It may have been written by man, but it was the Holy Spirit through those men who gave them the words to write. And only God can bestow His Holy Spirit upon man so that they might see the Bible for what it is...Truth.
In short: God told me so. Not man.
No, as the knowlege that has been granted to me comes not from man, but from God Himself. See above.Quote:
Also: because you admit that humans aren't perfect, why are you so positive in your beliefs? Can you not admit that there is the tiniest chance that what you believe can possibly be wrong, being an imperfect being?
Ah! But we are Indfallable creatures once we accept Christ as our Savior. We become holy in the eyes of God the Father, righteous and without sin.Quote:
That's one of the other things I don't get about people who are 100% sure of their religious conviction. They say that everything bad that happened is the fault of humans, that humans screw up religion, but they won't admit that their beliefs could be wrong, being falliable creatures.
And as such, I can proclaim the fact the only way to the Father is through Jesus Christ. And that I am not wrong. No other relegion in the world offers that clarification.
Seems to me that you just plain don't want to believe. No amount of proof will change that. And no manner of words I type will change it either. It's up to you to decide what or what not to believe. But debate such as thiss will not "prove the Bible wrong." Nor will it shake me in my faith. If you'd like to continue, then by all means I'll facilitate, but if not, I had a nice time speaking about my faith to you, and I thank you for that opportunity. :D
You totally missed the point of what I said. I'm not claiming that god is not perfect because he created something imperfect. I'm claiming that god is imperfect because he didn't make things the way he wanted the first time. If he was perfect and omniscient, he would have no need to send down Christ from heaven. People's souls would have been let into heaven from the beginning. And yet god made a mistake, and had to correct that mistake. That is not the action of a perfect being. And if people were the one's who made the mistake, god would have forseen that and corrected it before it happened (or had no need to correct it) because he is perfect.Quote:
Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
A perfect creator can yeild two types of creation. The reason for this limitation is that a creator cannot create something greater than itself. It can, however, create something less than itself. Therefore, God could have created perfect beings, or imperfect beings. One that was as Himself, or one that was less than Himself. Choosing to create something less than Himself in no way makes Him imperfect.
That's all well and good. Once again you're not arguing my point. By your own admission YOU don't understand god. And yet you argue as if you do, and everything you know is true, when, because god is beyond your understanding, and your thoughts are created by an imperfect brain, you should have no idea if your personal thoughts on god are correct.Quote:
And I most certainly can understand that you don't understand God.
Those words were written down, translated, and given to you by human beings, imperfect creatures. They may have made a mistake when transcripting that particular verse.Quote:
Wrong again:
Matt. 16:13-17
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" "Well," they replied, "some say John the Baptist, some say Elijah, and others say Jeremiah or one of the other prophets." Then he asked them, "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "You are blessed, Simon son of John, because my Father in heaven has revealed this to you. You did not learn this from any human being."
Onec again, how do you know? Everything you know about god and religion was passed to you by man, not god. You may believe that god gave those words to man to give to you, but why couldn't some man have screwed it up? They did a bunch of other bad shit in his name, why not screw up his message?Quote:
If your supposition was the case, than everyone who read the Bible would believe as I do. It may have been written by man, but it was the Holy Spirit through those men who gave them the words to write. And only God can bestow His Holy Spirit upon man so that they might see the Bible for what it is...Truth.
In short: God told me so. Not man.
And I'm not buying that. See above.Quote:
No, as the knowlege that has been granted to me comes not from man, but from God Himself. See above.
Now I'm thinking that you don't understand your religion properly. Even when you ask god for forgiveness, you definitely do not become infalliable. You still sin. You still make mistakes. You still have to ask god for forgiveness of those sins. Holy and righteous, maybe, without sin, no.Quote:
Ah! But we are Indfallable creatures once we accept Christ as our Savior. We become holy in the eyes of God the Father, righteous and without sin.
I don't want to believe. I want to know. But I won't take some other person's word that what he is saying is god's word. I have my own ideas, but I never proclaim them to be the truth without some way of backing it up. That doesn't mean I don't believe, either. I just don't know, and I accept that.Quote:
Seems to me that you just plain don't want to believe.
What you are offering is not proof.Quote:
No amount of proof will change that.
Won't prove the Bible right, either.Quote:
And no manner of words I type will change it either. It's up to you to decide what or what not to believe. But debate such as thiss will not "prove the Bible wrong."
God is perfect. Therefore His actions are perfect. Therefore His decision to do things the way He did is perfect. He didn't screw up in humans not obeying...He planned it. This is a simple as I can put it. And I'll not say it again, as I have 4 times now.Quote:
Originally posted by Saint of Killers
You totally missed the point of what I said. I'm not claiming that god is not perfect because he created something imperfect. I'm claiming that god is imperfect because he didn't make things the way he wanted the first time. If he was perfect and omniscient, he would have no need to send down Christ from heaven. People's souls would have been let into heaven from the beginning. And yet god made a mistake, and had to correct that mistake. That is not the action of a perfect being. And if people were the one's who made the mistake, god would have forseen that and corrected it before it happened (or had no need to correct it) because he is perfect.
I do understand God, as He allows me to. You can't because you don't have His spirit, and, likewise, cannot understand how I understand Him.Quote:
That's all well and good. Once again you're not arguing my point. By your own admission YOU don't understand god. And yet you argue as if you do, and everything you know is true, when, because god is beyond your understanding, and your thoughts are created by an imperfect brain, you should have no idea if your personal thoughts on god are correct.
If you're using this argument, then every written word in the history of mankind is subject to doubt. Yet people don't seem to doubt historical events.Quote:
Those words were written down, translated, and given to you by human beings, imperfect creatures. They may have made a mistake when transcripting that particular verse.
I find it funny that this argument is only ever applied to the Bible and not other historical texts.
God gave me that knowlege. Period, end of story. Whether you think so or not doesn't change anything.Quote:
Onec again, how do you know? Everything you know about god and religion was passed to you by man, not god. You may believe that god gave those words to man to give to you, but why couldn't some man have screwed it up? They did a bunch of other bad shit in his name, why not screw up his message?
If you need me to prove the validity of the Bible as a historical and historically accurate text, I will...
I understand it all to well. I am infallible in the eyes of the Lord. When I sin, it is the sinful nature in me, but not me, for I have a new, holy, sinless self. Paul writes about this on several occasions. But I garauntee without the spirit of the most high God, you'll not understand this.Quote:
Now I'm thinking that you don't understand your religion properly. Even when you ask god for forgiveness, you definitely do not become infalliable. You still sin. You still make mistakes. You still have to ask god for forgiveness of those sins. Holy and righteous, maybe, without sin, no.
I commend you. I wouldn't trust the word of another man as well. But, remember what I said about God granting me that knowlege? All you have to do is ask. Ask Him and see for yourself. Ask for Him to show you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the Bible really is and He will most definitly answer you. Seek and ye shall find.Quote:
I don't want to believe. I want to know. But I won't take some other person's word that what he is saying is god's word. I have my own ideas, but I never proclaim them to be the truth without some way of backing it up. That doesn't mean I don't believe, either. I just don't know, and I accept that.
Looks to me like you are seeking...just in the wrong place.
Be dilligent, and pester Him about it. Perservere. He'll let you know.
And I'll pray that he shows you.
Never claimed it was.Quote:
What you are offering is not proof.
Agreed. Only God's Spirit can do this for you. So, ask for His spirit. You may be suprised at the results. ;)Quote:
Won't prove the Bible right, either.
bloody how? the nature of forfeiting is quitting before theQuote:
oh, And you can forfeit and win an arguement.
argument has been completed. How can that amount to win?
And Captain Vegetable is back to his old trick again. Why are his arguments correct? because he gets them from god. why is someone else's argument incorrect? because they don't have the god in their arguments. When will he consider their arguments valid? When they're a mirror of his own arguments.
As far as the morals of the "robots" and "humans" and "gods" go. moral standards exist independently of their creator once created. let's say god said "it is morally correct to eat cheese." Now, for the sake of argument, lets define it as true.
if this same moral was found by man, it would be true.
if this same moral was found by a robot, it would be true.
the creator of the moral has no bearing on its value. They are not invalidated because they are made by robots, and validated when made by god, not when they are the same thing. And we can see some standards of god presented in the bible, and we can see similar standards created by man. And as the standards are the same, one is not superior to another. Standards also come with explanations(or they are useless), so it should follow that in my example, those are the same as well.
there is also the thought that, if god determines all of our actions, that we are not doing any wrong. which is to say, we are not responsible for our actions. But I remember you saying that "free-will/predetermination" co-exist. how? god said so? and so we will look at it another way. "not predetermination/predetermination" cannot co-exist in the same circumstance. One negates the other. if free will is present in a predetermined circumstance, it would be functionally useless, and its effect on the situation would be equal to that of it not being there. Which is to say, free will, and predetermination are two present variables. free will exists, with a value of 0(re: no value at all, but the possibility to gain value.), and predetermination exists, with a value defined by god. Which is to say, there is no free will to be judged in any circumstances. We are reduced to tools, and as such, god bears full responsibility for how he uses the tools. Standards placed on humans are entirely useless, as god decides that some humans should break these standards, and some should not, and in both cases, the human has no responsibility for his actions. this is the case given predetermination. If predetermination is true, then "not predetermination" is untrue.
you have said that this impossible circumstance: something being predetermined/not-predetermined is possible. what was your explanation? everything is possible through god.
except, apparently, created something greater than himself. that, my friend, is a limit. You consider god the greatest possibility, yes? great is another limit. if "anything" is possible, then there can be no limit to the creations that god can make that are greater than himself. You can consider god to be a representation of infinite(I imagine you do.and this would represent the greatest possibility by default as well) Even then, if anything is possible through god, he would be able to create something greater than himself.Quote:
A perfect creator can yeild two types of creation. The reason for this limitation is that a creator cannot create something greater than itself.
" create something greater than God? Impossible."
but man, isn't that exactly what god does? Your own self-imposed limit on god suggests that God is, indeed, limited by impossibility. and if you are going to limit god by impossibility in one respect, how then, can it not apply to all? Indeed, you would have to change "god can do anything", to "god can do anything that is possible", which is quite different.
god does not "define" perfection. if I attempt to get to grandma's house in or before 30 minutes times, and I do just that. I would have done so perfectly. God would have to look down and say i had done so perfectly, and if he does not do so, he will be wrong.perhaps you could argue that god isn't ever incorrect. So he would know that I had made it to grandma perfectly, but once again, this is different than defining. He could create a different definition, but you have implied that he attaches intent to his definition, so I am curious about what that definition is.
there is also the nature of god's "perfection". CV, you are saying that, sometimes, god's intentions are to bowl a 290, instead of a 300, correct? Which is a bit of an absurd reaction,as, really, any seemingly flawed action could be done so intentionally. To the point where, god could very well voice his intentions, not meet them, and then you could say he intended to voice false intentions and not meet them.
So how can you defend what god is "telling you"(by whatever means) as truth, when he may be deciding to bullshit you, and reveal the corrections later? He would be lying perfectly(with respect to his intentions). Deceit is a moral flaw, and if he is free of those(as you believe, and not because he does not perform functions that could be seen as morally flawed, but because, when he does perform those functions, they do not count as flaws against him . . . just because), then he can decieve at will , and maintain his perfection. He could say that he is honest, but those are the words of a liar as easily as they are the words of an honest man.
and all the time spent typing, + being on irc, means I'm not sure what I was going to say next, or correct, so I'll " . . . "