The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

iUseVi wrote: »

MrP: Sure is slightly more peaceful.

You two are despicable. Leaving poor old AtomicHorror to fight the good fight alone with only me to keep him company as a wise cracking sidekick.

AtomicHorror

Galvasean wrote: »

You two are despicable. Leaving poor old AtomicHorror to fight the good fight alone with only me to keep him company as a wise cracking sidekick.

I hate being the straight man. I want a catchphrase.

iUseVi

Galvasean wrote: »

You two are despicable. Leaving poor old AtomicHorror to fight the good fight alone with only me to keep him company as a wise cracking sidekick.

LOL You're doing a pretty good job. All I do is get angry and mash the keyboard.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

AtomicHorror

Good video. Certainly seems like a good basic model of abiogenesis. It even allows J_C to use the much-loved S-word so long as he doesn't put it in front of "evolution".

Flamed Diving

Everyone's a winner!

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

So God created us, knowing exactly how we would turn out. Then he gets annoyed with us for being the way we are, the way he created us?
This guy has issues.

Your logic is flawed:
The statement knowing exactly how we would turn out is not the same as the statement the way he created us.

He created us perfect, innocent. Our first parents sinned. We follow in their steps. That's why He gets annoyed with us.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your logic is flawed:
The statement knowing exactly how we would turn out is not the same as the statement the way he created us.

He created us perfect, innocent. Our first parents sinned. We follow in their steps. That's why He gets annoyed with us.

Your logic is flawed- if they were perfect, why did they sin?

Flamed Diving

If God is perfect, why does he get angry?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Your logic is flawed- if they were perfect, why did they sin?

They had the ability to sin or not sin. True freedom of the will. That was regarded by God as compatible with perfection.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If God is perfect, why does he get angry?

Because anger is the only good and righteous response to sin. Not to get angry would be a sign of imperfection.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

They had the ability to sin or not sin. True freedom of the will. That was regarded by God as compatible with perfection.

That's a rather loose interpretation of 'perfect'. More 0.98 than 1.0. But hey, He works in mysterious ways...

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

They had the ability to sin or not sin. True freedom of the will. That was regarded by God as compatible with perfection.

But you stated several posts ago that God can and does block any free-will action that defies his plan. This must mean that he permitted the sin allowed by free-will and that He is thus hypocritical for being angry about such sin.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

He created us perfect, innocent. Our first parents sinned. We follow in their steps. That's why He gets annoyed with us.

If we were first perfect the why would we have sinned? Would perfect people need to sin? Obviously no, however did our first parents even sin? The fruit they ate was of "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", if they didn't know of Good and Evil, how can they be guilty of doing Evil? Besides they where tricked by the devil, weren't they? A fallen angel far more powerful than they.

They had the ability to sin or not sin. True freedom of the will. That was regarded by God as compatible with perfection.

How do you know that? Do you know Gods thoughts?

Because anger is the only good and righteous response to sin. Not to get angry would be a sign of imperfection.

Really? I would have thought that if a perfect being had spent so much effort into making the universe and the world and all the creatures for man and then giving man free will, only for man to go and sin, that perfect being would be epically disappointed, not angry. Surely an eternal, omniscient being would realise that anger is generally only a short term solution which usually just results in the people you are being angry at being angry back at you. Surely imperfection is allowing your base emotions to control your decisions.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Your logic is flawed:
The statement knowing exactly how we would turn out is not the same as the statement the way he created us.

Nice attempt at word games but I can see right through it.
Allow me to rephrase. He created us the way we are and also knowing exactly how we would turn out. His ability to know the future and the nature of his creations should make it impossible for him to be surprised. There is no point in him getting upset. If he didn't want to be displeased he simply should have created us with a sinless free will. Since he is all powerful such a feat should be simple for him.

wolfsbane wrote: »

He created us perfect, innocent. Our first parents sinned. We follow in their steps. That's why He gets annoyed with us.

Perfect sinners. Gotcha.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because anger is the only good and righteous response to sin. Not to get angry would be a sign of imperfection.

Or how about he use is infinite wisdom to show mankind the error of its ways rather than just getting angry and making spur of the moment decisions? Surely a calm and collected approach would be more suitable.

edit: sorry if I sound snappy. I still think I've make valid arguments. hope to hear back soon.

iUseVi

wolfsbane wrote: »

They had the ability to sin or not sin. True freedom of the will. That was regarded by God as compatible with perfection.

Let me see if I have this right.

People were made perfect - but can and did sin.
God is perfect - but can NOT sin.

I think you need to think about your definition of perfect. Can't have it both ways.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Because anger is the only good and righteous response to sin. Not to get angry would be a sign of imperfection.

That is ridiculous. Anger is not a sign of perfection, anger is the loss of control, a very human flaw.

bus77

Wicknight wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Anger is not a sign of perfection, anger is the loss of control, a very human flaw.

I think he meens lack of anger word be sign of indifference to the achievement of perfection.

Galvasean

There is no such thing as perfection since everyone has a different definition of what it means to be flawless.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

There is no such thing as perfection since everyone has a different definition of what it means to be flawless.

Maybe you should think that statement through a bit more.

I suppose there are no such things as beauty, ugliness, evil, or stupidity since so many people define these things differently?

Would you say that Arsenal don't actually play beautiful football because Vinnie Jones defines 'beautiful' differently?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should think that statement through a bit more.

I suppose there are no such things as beauty, ugliness, evil, or stupidity since so many people define these things differently?

Would you say that Arsenal don't actually play beautiful football because Vinnie Jones defines 'beautiful' differently?

Well no, you are missing the key characteristic of "perfection", that nothing can be more perfect. There aren't relative scales of perfection. Something is perfect or it isn't, and that is not subjective.

You can have different ideas of beauty, evil, stupid etc because these concepts are not defined at extremes.

Perfection is. You can't have different opinions on perfection, not in the real sense of that word.

bus77

Gone off on a bit of a tangent here lads. Don't meen to come across as a smartass but you have two different definitions of perfection. The 'act' of perfection, and the static definition. Seeing as he said ''Because anger is the only good and righteous response to sin.'' I took it more as the act or process one.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should think that statement through a bit more.

I suppose there are no such things as beauty, ugliness, evil, or stupidity since so many people define these things differently?

Would you say that Arsenal don't actually play beautiful football because Vinnie Jones defines 'beautiful' differently?

Perfection, beauty, ugliness, evil and stupidity are all man made definitions which are open to interpretation. "In the eye of the beholder" if you will.

and

Screw Vinnie Jones

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

That is ridiculous. Anger is not a sign of perfection, anger is the loss of control, a very human flaw.

Your concept of anger is, er, unusual. Most people do not define it as the loss of control, but the emotional response to a perceived wrong. It may or may not be accompanied by a loss of control - an uncontrolled anger. Often it is controlled by the will, the person deciding an appropriate action to follow the emotional response.

If anger is a flaw, how do you think man or God should respond to wickedness - to child-molestation, for instance?

wolfsbane

iUseVi said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They had the ability to sin or not sin. True freedom of the will. That was regarded by God as compatible with perfection.
Let me see if I have this right.

People were made perfect - but can and did sin.
God is perfect - but can NOT sin.

I think you need to think about your definition of perfect. Can't have it both ways.

A perfect apple is not a perfect orange. God and man are not identical. God's perfection encompasses the inability to sin. Adam's perfection did not. And in eternity, believers will not be able to sin.

The common factor, the defining characteristic of spiritual perfection, is this: the absence of sin.

wolfsbane

Galvasean said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Your logic is flawed:
The statement knowing exactly how we would turn out is not the same as the statement the way he created us.
Nice attempt at word games but I can see right through it.
Allow me to rephrase. He created us the way we are

Wrong. He created man innocent. We are no longer such.

and also knowing exactly how we would turn out.

Correct.

His ability to know the future and the nature of his creations should make it impossible for him to be surprised.

He was not surprised.

There is no point in him getting upset. If he didn't want to be displeased he simply should have created us with a sinless free will. Since he is all powerful such a feat should be simple for him.

He could have created us without the ability to sin. He saw fit not to. He still has the right/responsibility to be angered by our sin. He did not make Adam sin - Adam chose to.

Perfect sinners. Gotcha.

As above - perfect, then sinners. Not created perfect sinners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Because anger is the only good and righteous response to sin. Not to get angry would be a sign of imperfection.
Or how about he use is infinite wisdom to show mankind the error of its ways rather than just getting angry and making spur of the moment decisions? Surely a calm and collected approach would be more suitable.

God's response is calm and collected. Anger need not result in hasty decisions. God is showing men their sin, calling them to repent and warning them of eternal condemnation if they do not.

edit: sorry if I sound snappy. I still think I've make valid arguments. hope to hear back soon.

Righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come are emotive subjects, and time often presses as we sit down to post - so be assured I'm easy with our tones. But thanks for the concern.:)

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That's a rather loose interpretation of 'perfect'. More 0.98 than 1.0. But hey, He works in mysterious ways...

The ability to sin was not an imperfection, just a different ability. Spiritual perfection consists in being pure from any sin.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But you stated several posts ago that God can and does block any free-will action that defies his plan. This must mean that he permitted the sin allowed by free-will and that He is thus hypocritical for being angry about such sin.

He permitted the sin. But that does not make Him hypocritical in condemning it. Unless granting the ability to choose to obey or not obey is itself sinful.

I think not.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

If we were first perfect the why would we have sinned?

They chose to.

Would perfect people need to sin?

No, they did not need to sin. They chose to.

Obviously no, however did our first parents even sin? The fruit they ate was of "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil", if they didn't know of Good and Evil, how can they be guilty of doing Evil?

They knew God's command not to eat. They knew nothing of the contrast of good and evil outside of that. After they ate, then the two moral worlds became evident - the nature of fear, shame, blame-shifting, for example. But their sin was in disobeying God, before they had such a wider insight into sin.

Besides they where tricked by the devil, weren't they? A fallen angel far more powerful than they.

Yes, Satan bears his share of responsibility and will be eternally punished for it. But being deceived by an angel is no defence to disobeying God.

Quote:
They had the ability to sin or not sin. True freedom of the will. That was regarded by God as compatible with perfection.
How do you know that? Do you know Gods thoughts?

Yes, I read them in the Bible.

Quote:
Because anger is the only good and righteous response to sin. Not to get angry would be a sign of imperfection.
Really? I would have thought that if a perfect being had spent so much effort into making the universe and the world and all the creatures for man and then giving man free will, only for man to go and sin, that perfect being would be epically disappointed, not angry. Surely an eternal, omniscient being would realise that anger is generally only a short term solution which usually just results in the people you are being angry at being angry back at you. Surely imperfection is allowing your base emotions to control your decisions.

Is this rejection of anger as an appropriate response common today, or just to this thread? Do you really think one should be unmoved by wickedness? Or just disappointed when children are sexually abused, women raped, workers enslaved?

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

The ability to sin was not an imperfection, just a different ability. Spiritual perfection consists in being pure from any sin.

That means absolutely nothing.